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: 82
31
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Ah I see now. You are a follower of the god of love which explains the attitude, bile and name calling.

Oh looking further I will understand if you dont reply. OOOooops.


edit on 20-11-2011 by colin42 because: After reading on




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You believe animals do not suffer illness from contaminated water, Really?

An Ant eater has a niche. It is specailised. If ants and termites disapeared and he could not find another food source there would no longer be ant eaters. On the otherhand if our staple food was to disapear we would tool up and exploit another because we are not specialists. We have evolved to be a jack of all trades, master of none.
I know animals suffer but they don't go through half the stuff we do. Do you honestly think that our well being on this planet is a close run thing? Your dead wrong. We amped up our medical feild because we had to in order to stay alive. Which again is not evolving, its adapting. There is a big difference. Had we of evoloved our DNA would have magically changed just like most evolutionists believe, to automatically acomodate our needs.




Why do you continue to equate supporters of evolution as closed minded about life outside this planet when it is science that showed the odds for it are overwhelming? There are probably more people with religion that refuse to accept extraterrestial life.
IMO you have to be closed minded to think evolution is possible over intervention.




I would imagine with a population that exceeds 7 Billion this planet suits us pretty well. As I and others have explained to you plenty of times, but here you seem closed minded. We are tool users and so our niche is pretty much all niches which makes our planet 100% our home. Where do you get we do not belong.
And its all in fact because of us adapting.




What you are describing are social issues. It is also seen with other species both in the wild and captivity.

Things you left off your list. People also care for others, love, sacrifice to protect, Laugh, play, invent, produce art that takes your breath away. Explore, write, teach. The list goes on.
True but the list is much larger and agressive on the negative side.




Thats it, I think you may be getting there. This planet is evolving like everything else. It is dynamic and in constant change and so everything on it needs to change to be able to continue living on it. Its the price we all pay for being alive.

If life did not evolve then life on this planet would not be here now and because everything is linked this planet would not be as it is now.

I feel sorry for you as you apear to hate living your life and have constructed a story that will never let you change that. Evolution and science in general guides us to an understanding that life and the universe is an unending wonder and everything is linked and related.

When I look to the skies and wonder like all my ancestors have I see an infinte challenge. You on the otherhand look in the hope someone saves you.
It is interesting in the idea that we could be saved. Honestly though, I doubt it. ET is NOT our friend and I'm sure any furthure intervention would come with some unfair type of price tag.




You believe animals do not suffer illness from contaminated water, Really?

An Ant eater has a niche. It is specailised. If ants and termites disapeared and he could not find another food source there would no longer be ant eaters. On the otherhand if our staple food was to disapear we would tool up and exploit another because we are not specialists. We have evolved to be a jack of all trades, master of none.
Take away our ability to adapt and we would be dead.




This is because the books you have do not have any evidence. Evolution can only accept evidence otherwise it becomes a belief so it is not ignored it has no evidence to back up the claims.
I disagree, I think the books have a plethora of evidence.




Lack of proof is hardly proof. This has been explained to te point of nose bleed so I refer you to posts in this thread and all the others on this subject.
I think we both have equall amounts of proof on our side. While both can say there are objections, I think you have the lack of evidence of bones against you, and I have the lack of evidence of aliens with good reasons.




I agree that for us to have evolved from a common ancestor as other primates it takes a lot more than a slight change. It takes many SMALL changes. Selected by the enviroment and fed back into the herd until it becomes established. Incest does not enter into it. This too has been covered many times over.

It is possible and evolution and the evidence shows how.
I estimate that in order for evolution to be allowed in the amount and severity we are looking at trillions of years. Problem here is earth isn't that old. So what do you think that means?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





As I said in my previous reply I feel sorry for you if you cannot see passed 'we are screwed'. I do have a suggestion. Dont base reality only on what you believe. Try basing it on things you can see and prove to yourself. Go outside and look and it wont take long to find for yourself the evidence Evolution uses.


Sure if you believe everything thats real can be seen. If you believe that we know it all.
I'm sorry but I don't.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 







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.
Wow itero your the last person I expected to be quoting the bible.

Keep in mind that just because he is claiming to have given us all of this (which I don't doubt) it doesn't mean that he actaully created them.




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.
That image in our likeness could have been a microscope which does fit with his appearance in the ezekiel chapter showing up with a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man.Dust could have been the person writting this, best way at explaining DNA.

I find it hard to believe that he made us from dust, and think it was just the best they could do on a description.




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..
I think its another obvious clue that aliens are in the bible.




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)
I think he was very controlling and it makes sense with the whole reason on why he put us here to begin with.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 





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.
God was not a good guy. Some people would argue and say hey, he could have killed us anytime he wanted to but chose not to. It's true but at the same time he burdened us with a plethora of DNA punishments and left us stranded on a planet that is also mentioned in the bible as not being our true home. It's cruelty IMO.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Is it possible that we could get someone to prove evolution wrong without saying "god/aliens did it" ?

Unless you have proof that a god, gods, or aliens did it, then your argument in this thread is pointless. You are not arguing against evolution. You are misunderstanding evolution, and then replacing it with an idea you personally seem to feel more comfortable with.

This isn't about what you feel is the real mechanism. It's a thread about "Can you prove evolution wrong?" Is there a point in the theory of evolution that you find inaccurate and are willing to contest?

If so, what is/are this/these point(s) and what is your explanation? You are not allowed to use points that are not actually part of the theory of evolution to attempt to prove evolution wrong.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I find it impossible to discuss anything with you. Your books have no evidence otherwise you could show it here in the way the pro evolution group does. You answer any and all question without considering any point made and roll out unrelated rubbish that is never backed up with anything other than belief.

Worse you make totally baseless statements like hands show we are not from earth. We do not fit. We have stolen powers to list but a few and never address how you came to believe them when asked.

Belief does not = fact and your belief = zero evidence

Your lack of any evidence is why you cannot address the OP and that is to describe the diversity we see without evolution and why you attack evolution instead but show a total lack of understanding of it.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 

So you believe what you do about biodiversity because the Bible tells you so. And you believe in the Bible because the Bible is infallible. And you know it's infallible because it's the word of God. And you know it's the word of God because the Bible tells you so. Ad infinitum.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Wow itero your the last person I expected to be quoting the bible.

Because I didn't. You're reading RebelRouser's reply to my post, not my post. But I'm proud of you that you finally learned how to use the quote function correctly. It makes your replies to other posts infinitely more readable.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


i apologize. it looked like one of yours. a new dude snuck into the convo. anyway.. first off let me start by saying. tattling on me just proves it more.oh man i lost points too?! my day is ruined.. please dont ban my account i made in 3 minutes. like i cant just go make a new one lol.. why haven't you evolved into a man yet? heres the bottom line to the evolutionary theory that you believe in as much as I believe in God. If it was PROVEN we wouldn't be having this discussion. we would all believe it without question. the fact is it is riddled with holes and unexplained gaps and the biggest lack of all. lack of evidence. this is literally your argument " God didn't tell me (collin) personally how he did it, therefore it cant be true because i read a whole bunch of stuff that makes a lot of sense when you want it to. so most likely thats right" you just rule it out Gods word because it doesnt give you the play by play on exactly how he created the wold and everything in it?? idk why u think ur important enough for that. if that doesn't describe ignorant idk what does. it baffles me that


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.

en.wikibooks.org...
^this is one peice of evidence that you base a whole way of thinking on. just think about it.. this is what you use to prove it? how man might have changed? thats just man.. now take me through every single other species .. but dont hurt yourself cause it looks like you guys have problems with just one. the sad part is this is the (best) example, that and plants.. nice..

i feel like these statements prove the bible more right than every book of evolutionary theory on the shelf

end time signs

A world that falls more and more away from God, that experiences increasing sin,
a love that grows cold will prepare the way for the antichrist. People will be begging for
help in dealing with lawlessness, drunkenness, drugs, occults, crime, and on and on.
The will look toward anyone who can bring true care and affection and love back into society.
Matthew 24:12

A world that is full of false messiahs claiming that they have the answers to life will prepare
the way for the antichrist Matthew 24:5

A world that is full of violence, wars, and rumors of war will prepare the way for the antichrist.
Million of lives, homes, families and all else will be destroyed. A devastated people will turn to
any leader who can bring peace and restoration. Matthew 24:6-7

A world that is rocked with natural disaster after natural disaster will prepare the way for the
antichrist. Disaster after disaster will cause people to fear. Fear will drive people to a world leader
who can promise and provided economic and medical help and aid. Matthew 24:7b

A world that is torn apart religiously will prepare the way for the antichrist. Severe religious
persecution land terrible apostasy and betrayal will sweep the earth. There will be division
within the ranks of religion and families and between neighbors sweeping the earth in the end time.
This will cause people to turn for help in bringing peace between religions. Matthew 24:9-10

A world that is full of false religion and false preachers will prepare the way for the antichrist.
They will be ripe for the promise of the antichrist. Matthew 24:11

you didnt bother to touch those 2 last post of mine. u can start with the A. B. and C. parts on my post on pg 81

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


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Sun Nov 20 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: ex tags and source

edit on 20/11/11 by masqua because: Removed personal attack

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



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Read "The Ancestor's Tale," by Richard Dawkins. He explains this thoroughly, tracing back starting at man, continuously until Eubacteria. I highly recommend it as an informative and extensive read.

It's pretty cheap on Amazon, or you can borrow it from your local library:

Link to book on Amazon
edit on 20-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the link



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


whats it about?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

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


to me using dna to compare everything is almost like using atoms to relate everything. every living thing has dna. and everything is made up of atoms. something had to be the building blocks. did u expect earth to be aliens/mixed with humans/ mixed with vampires. like what would you think would separate a species besides those key blocks. cause its similar we once were that? dogs share about 95 % of the same dna as a human. so were we dogs? A wildebeest has most of the same genes as a lion, but I doubt that this fact will patch up relations between those species. and a good point i read




Only 12 to 120 thousand years of evolution separates dogs and wolves, while roughly 6 million years separates us from chimps. Look at the zeroes: 12,000 vs. 6,000,000 years. And even when you parse that comparison down by the numbers of generations, there’s still a significant difference. Plus we don’t, in fact share 98.6% of our DNA with chimps; we share 98.6% of our nucleotide sequence. And as cognitive scientist Daniel Povinelli, of the University of Louisiana, puts it: “That rough similarity in our nucleotide sequences obscures the fact that the same genes may have dramatically different activity levels in the two species.” In other words chimps and humans aren’t anywhere near as alike as Dunbar would have us believe, nor even remotely as alike as dogs and wolves actually are. Meanwhile Dunbar’s analogy also crumbles when we consider that by some scientific forms of reckoning dogs are actually two members of the same species (canis lupus, canis lupus famliaris), while chimps and humans (pan troglodytes, homo sapiens) aren’t even in the same biological family.

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

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


link

the admins all over me. i pretty sure if i said i read something its not plagiarism, plagiarism implies taking credit. didnt know i was in school and had to site sources for the teach
edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by Varemia
 


whats it about?



With unparalleled wit, clarity, and intelligence, Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most renowned evolutionary biologists, has introduced countless readers to the wonders of science in works such as The Selfish Gene. Now, in The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins offers a masterwork: an exhilarating reverse tour through evolution, from present-day humans back to the microbial beginnings of life four billion years ago. Throughout the journey Dawkins spins entertaining, insightful stories and sheds light on topics such as speciation, sexual selection, and extinction. The Ancestor's Tale is at once an essential education in evolutionary theory and a riveting read.


It was the description in the Amazon link. I've got the book with me right now, and it's very good. It's split into chapters named a (creature's) tale, going into detail about the origin of that species' attributes. The introduction goes on explaining evolution and how it is provable even without fossils, how fossils are actually just a bonus. Each chapter includes a diagram showing the points of divergence for each species, and there are also pictures describing the various functions of the things he talks about. It's quite large, over 500 pages, but it is a worthwhile read, and Dawkins manages to keep it interesting.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

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.

Did you really just call me a stooge?
Don't worry I've been called worse. I don't understand why you resort to name calling when nobody has attacked you. Either way, you are incorrect, again. Intelligence is the most important thing for humans. Most creatures rely on instinct and ability to adapt/blend with their surroundings, not intelligent thinking and decision making. Are you trying to say that other creatures have even close to our intellectual capacity? Ant eaters don't rely on intelligence and debate amongst themselves the best strategies for harvesting ants, they just do it because their body is best suited for it, just like ours is best suited for creative problem solving and making tools. Sharks don't analyze situations, they smell blood and follow the scent. Chameleons blend in with their surroundings, not because they think about doing it or choose to. It comes naturally, and helps them survive, which is the prime driver of evolution. I could name a hundred more examples of this if I had the time. I'm not saying that the brain doesn't determine how a creature functions, I'm saying that our intelligence is what separates us from all other life on this planet, because we use reasoning and troubleshooting to solve problems and build creations. You are assuming that because a creature is here and has a function with nature that it was designed to do so, but you have no evidence at all to support it. You are mistaking being designed for adapting to an environment over millions of years.



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"


I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here. What odds are you referring to? None of it makes any sense. "evolution is like putting a bomb in scrap metal and turning into a 747"? Seriously? Evolution can be OBSERVED IN A LAB and in nature. It is not a random guess. Homo sapiens didn't evolve from homo habilis by getting blown up and then poofing out a new species. Thousands to millions of small changes over millions of years, changed the species. It didn't just form into a brand new species over night.



i apologize. it looked like one of yours. a new dude snuck into the convo. anyway.. first off let me start by saying. tattling on me just proves it more.oh man i lost points too?! my day is ruined.. please dont ban my account i made in 3 minutes. like i cant just go make a new one lol.. why haven't you evolved into a man yet? heres the bottom line to the evolutionary theory that you believe in as much as I believe in God. If it was PROVEN we wouldn't be having this discussion. we would all believe it without question. the fact is it is riddled with holes and unexplained gaps and the biggest lack of all. lack of evidence. this is literally your argument " God didn't tell me (collin) personally how he did it, therefore it cant be true because i read a whole bunch of stuff that makes a lot of sense when you want it to. so most likely thats right" you just rule it out Gods word because it doesnt give you the play by play on exactly how he created the wold and everything in it?? idk why u think ur important enough for that. if that doesn't describe ignorant idk what does. it baffles me that

Yeah that was me you were responding to. You know, the guy that snuck in randomly, giving you points and counterpoints that you conveniently ignored. If you actually read the thread you'd realize I've been participating in it longer than you have. Evolution has been proven, the small details, like exactly when and where are still up for debate with some species, but it varies. Nobody questions that evolution has actually happened, besides the extreme religious folks that cling to a storybook over scientific facts. If you had any evidence to back your claims or proof that the bible is the actual word of a magic creator, I'd love to see it. You are just flipping everyone's words around, ignoring their counterpoints, and topping it off with insults and a condescending demeanor. Collin's argument is that no other theory besides evolution has evidence to back it up, that explains the diversity of life on earth. It has nothing to do with god or the bible. These are the arguments that you have brought up. If you have the evidence, then provide it. That is the sole purpose of this thread, not to rant about religion and god. God and evolution do not even contradict each other. I'm really hoping somebody grabs the bull by the horns in this thread and actually addresses the topic, but it hasn't happened yet and we're 80+ pages in.
edit on 21-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

I disagree, I think the books have a plethora of evidence.

Story books are not objective evidence. Fossils, DNA analysis, lab observations and experiments are exactly that.


I think we both have equall amounts of proof on our side.

Ok sure. Please list all of the proof for you side. Again, I said PROOF. Not storybooks, or claims made by authors without scientific evidence behind them.



I estimate that in order for evolution to be allowed in the amount and severity we are looking at trillions of years. Problem here is earth isn't that old. So what do you think that means?

Problem here is that your estimation doesn't indicate reality. It's kinda like the guy who was saying that odds for creation are much higher than the odds for evolution, yet provided no equations or any kind of mathematics or science to show this. Your gut feeling isn't is a basis for a scientific conclusion or mathematical probability.
edit on 21-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Not that I owe you any explanation but I did not and have never 'tattled' on anyone, I left the classroom years ago, the 'Why have I not evolved into a man yet' comment looks like you have not. Getting your information wrong also appears to be a trait.

Of course the ammount of insults you throw out could mean that it was actually you that was at fault but hey how could that be true.

Regarding the rest of your post your.

So you say evolution cannot be true due to missing evidence but insist I believe you when you tell me you are correct with no evidence at all.

If you believe an END OF DAYS rant is an explanation of the diversity we see you have another major fail. That sort of thing may scare you into blind faith but TBH it means less than nothing to me.

What does suprise me is you believe in (Wild guess) a god of love and turn the other cheek and knowing these rules attack eveyone on the board. If there is a hell, see you there.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Ah, but you can't prove that, can you?

If it has a Y chromosome and is able to mate with a human female, it's human.



I think your assuming a lot here.
It's really open and hard to know untill we show up at ET's doorstep and ask for a DNA sample.
edit on 18-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Am I really assuming too much?

Prove me wrong if you can.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


If it was PROVEN we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Statements like this are why I lament the state of science education in the United States. At least one science class in every student's academic career should be a class about science.

One of the things they would teach in that class is that no scientific theory is "proven". Scientific theories that survive are the ones that successfully tie the evidence together into a coherent framework and stand up to repeated testing, not ones that are "proven". Atomic theory, cell theory, heliocentric theory, circuit theory, the theory of gravity... none of these are "proven".


we would all believe it without question.

This statement shows how locked into your theological mindset you really are. Believing something without question is the domain of religion. Accepting something because of the evidence that has been presented for it is the domain of science.


you just rule it out Gods word because it doesnt give you the play by play on exactly how he created the wold and everything in it??

Yet this is exactly what you demand from the theory of evolution, isn't it? You ignore all of the evidence supporting evolution, because it's not enough to constitute "proof" in your mind, and ignore that there is zero evidence for your creation myth.


this is one peice of evidence that you base a whole way of thinking on.

No, best doesn't mean there's only one. It means it's a well-researched, clear-cut example. Sympatric evolution is only one specific evolutionary condition. I can go to a database of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, let's use PubMed as an example, type in "sympatric evolution" and immediately find over 1200 articles with evidence for sympatric evolution across a wide range of species, not just plants and fish.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Is it possible that we could get someone to prove evolution wrong without saying "god/aliens did it" ?

Unless you have proof that a god, gods, or aliens did it, then your argument in this thread is pointless. You are not arguing against evolution. You are misunderstanding evolution, and then replacing it with an idea you personally seem to feel more comfortable with.

This isn't about what you feel is the real mechanism. It's a thread about "Can you prove evolution wrong?" Is there a point in the theory of evolution that you find inaccurate and are willing to contest?

If so, what is/are this/these point(s) and what is your explanation? You are not allowed to use points that are not actually part of the theory of evolution to attempt to prove evolution wrong.
Well I think people point in that direction because it obviously replaces the possibility of evolution (at least in how we got here).

As far as it being a personal idea, I dunno, the bible, von dankin, Pye, and Sitchen all point in the same direction so I think its just a little more than personal. I think if aliens werent' easially seen as relative subject matter, they would have removed the content.

Ill say it again, if you have to ask where do we come from or how did we get here, then you aint from here. It's that simple.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join