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: 86
31
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





It's not easy to understand I will say that.


Especially in the absence of any supporting evidence. Not everyone can just buy into fairytales while completely ignoring facts that go against that fairytale...takes a lot of skill


I'm not sure you realize that nothing you posted could be considered objective evidence proving your point. You are stating your BELIEF, and that belief isn't based on evidence.




posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
OP, I see your responders did not do as you asked and allow a non-evolution believer to make his claim.

I will now answer your questions in as simple a manner as I can.

THE PROOF EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT

The proof of this claim is found in the laws of science themselfs and in the inability to re-create the foundation of Evolution in any test environment.

Evolution is a theory that states through a series of mutations in the genome of a species due to external pressures (adaptation) a new unique species can evolved over time. These genomes always move from less complex (single cell) to more complex (humans).

Here is the thing....

No mutation observed by any scientist in the genome of a species has ever resulted in "more complex" genetics. 100% of all observed mutations in genetic code results in "less complex" traits the genome becomes retarded (not in the deragitory way but literal) into a being with little to no chance of survival without aid from other life forms. Since mutation can be prooven to only lead to less complex genomes, the theory of Evolution cannot be factual.

The law of Biogenesis

This is a scientific law, not a theory, this law states that all life must come from life; life cannot be originated from non-life. Now in the Theory of Evolution step one occurs in a cease pool billions of years ago on a cooling Earth's surface, where amino acids (no life of themselves) "magically" came together to create a single cell organism which claims to be the ancestor of us all. Again this jump is neccisary in order to believe in Evolution and this assumption disregards sciences own prooven Law of Biogenesis.

It is for these two primary, easy to grasp concepts that Evolution can be prooven false beyond the shadow of a doubt. This is not taking away adaptaion, which IS observable and can be seen in bacteria and viruses etc. before your very eyes, something in the environment forces the species to adapt in order to survive. That is scientific fact. But that is adaptation and NOT evolution. The genomes do not mutate into a more complex form.

The Fossil Record

The weakest thing I have heard in a while is that "Satan put the fossils here to trick us". This is the worst thing to believe and altough I understand living by faith, your religious leaders are simply lying to you. This is a lie because your leaders do not understand God's truth. Fossils are fossils. The problem with fossils is found in carbon dating and the understanding of why they are fossils.

Carbon dating requires the exact same ratio of carbon in the atmosphere, if this ratio is not the same in the distant past when this creature died, then the date you recieve from carbon dating is inaccurate. The very inventor of this technology said it should never be used to factually date an object because carbon levels in the atmosphere changes constantly.

A fossil is not made slowly over time. There are many bones buried in human crypts, tombs, graves around the world where the bones have disinegrated into dust, same with cattle bones in Texas etc. Bone turns to dust over time without something substancial effecting it. Bones do not turn into fossils over time. The fossilization of calcium occurs under pressure, massive amounts of pressure (like diamond is created do to massive amounts of pressure on coal). Something MAJOR had to occur when these things died for the nessisary pressures to exist to fossilize the calcium found in the bones.

Since carbon dating is not accurate, throw out what you think the timeline of Earth's history is and look at what you actually see.

A deep layer full of dinosaur fossils, and larger then life insects and other such fossils. Then a layer of sediment indicating a lack of life for a time. Then a large area full of fossils of mamoths, sabertooth tigers, neanderthals and gaint sloths. Then a layer of sediment indicating something major happened. Then you have our current layer with regular bones decompossing at the normal rate over time.

What does God say happened?

God said He created the spiritual realm and all the angels, then God created the physical realm on top of the spiritual (spirit sustains the physical). Then God placed the angel Lucifer on Earth to administer God government over the Earth, to rule over what the angels and God were creating back then. The world Lucifer ruled over was the age of the dinosaurs. Then Lucifer learned about God's plan for mankind, and that mankind would eventually be placed far above the angels (in time). Lucifer rebelled and became known as Satan. A war took place in the spiritual realm, that destruction carried over into the physical realm and the Earth was totaly destroyed not one thing left alive on the planet, a type of nuclear winter consumed the Earth and no sunlight reached its surface. This is what happened BETWEEN the first and second verse of Genesis 1.

Cont.
edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
"In the begining God created the heavens (spiritual realm) and the Earth (physical realm). And the Earth was made void and full of choas."

God did not create the Earth full of choas in fact in scripture it states God creates NOTHING void and full of choas, the Earth was put in that state due to Lucifers rebelion against God.

Verse 3
"THEN God said let there be light..."

There is a passage of time. The hebrew indicates a long passage of time from when the Earth was first created and Lucifers ruled over it to when God began to "re-create" the Earth's surface so that it would be suitable for mankind to live on it and thrive.

This is why chirstains believe th Earth is only 6000 years old, when in reality the Earth is potentially billions of years old, but mankind has only dwelt on it for 6000 years. it has only been 6000 years since God re-created the Earth for mankind to live, mankind could not have lived long in the world ruled by Lucifer with giant carnivours and massive insects etc.

Summary of Fossils

Dinosaur fossils and all larger then live pre-historic fossil were created when the Earth was totally destroyed as a result of Lucifer's rebelion.

Neandrathal man and all saber tooth, mammoth, sloth etc. are fossils that were created during the flood of Noah, all that water would cause ample pressuer enough to fossilize the calcium of those beings. All neandrathal fossils are pre-flood mankind who died in Noah's flood.

If you look at the same evidence you currently use to justify the prooven false theory of evolution, and apply the lens of the word of God to what you are seeing. Everything is in total unity with the biblical account of creation and re-creation of the Earth found in Genesis. Unfortunately only God can place the conviction of these truths in your mind, and you have the free choice to choose what you believe to be true in this age.

God Bless,
edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 





These genomes always move from less complex (single cell) to more complex (humans).


Not necessarily. Depends on what you consider complexity. The number of genomes? What's complexity in your mind?




No mutation observed by any scientist in the genome of a species has ever resulted in "more complex" genetics. 100% of all observed mutations in genetic code results in "less complex" traits the genome becomes retarded (not in the deragitory way but literal) into a being with little to no chance of survival without aid from other life forms. Since mutation can be prooven to only lead to less complex genomes, the theory of Evolution cannot be factual.


You keep on using the world "complex" as if this is somehow related to the survival chances of a species. That's complete and utter nonsense.

Take a jellyfish for example, by all means, you could say its a lot less complex than a human. Yet, dive down 200m and that "less complex" jellyfish has a much higher chance of survival than you. Complexity doesn't equal better chances of survival. So your entire point above is hogwash





This is a scientific law, not a theory, this law states that all life must come from life; life cannot be originated from non-life. Now in the Theory of Evolution step one occurs in a cease pool billions of years ago on a colling Earth's surface, where amino acid (no life of themselves) "magically" came together to create a single cell organism which claims to be the ancestor of us all. Again this jump is neccisary in order to believe in Evolution and this assumption disregards sciences on prooven Law of Biogenesis.


And here you show everyone that you don't really understand the theory at all. The theory of evolution makes NO STATEMENTS regarding how life started in the first place. It only concerns itself with explaining the diversity of life once it started off...which it makes by pointing out hard, objective evidence.

In essence, you are criticising a theory you clearly don't understand.

Here's a link explaining what the theory is: LINK




Carbon dating requires the exact same ratio of carbon in the atmosphere, if this ratio is not the same in the distant past when this creature died, then the date you recieve from carbon dating is inaccurate. The very inventor of this technology said it should never be used to factually date an object because carbon levels in the atmosphere changes constantly.


First of all, there's plenty of other radiometric dating methods. And the rating scale is calibrated for anything that could have had an impact on the rate of decay. So your entire argument is complete disinformation. Radiometric dating is no so accurate, that we can date the earth to 4.54b years with and error margin of ONLY 1%.




A fossil is not made slowly over time. There are many bones buried in human crypts, tombs, graves around the world where the bones have disinegrated into dust, same with cattle bones in Texas etc. Bone turns to dust over time without something substancial effecting it. Bones do not turn into fossils over time. The fossilization of calcium occurs under pressure, massive amounts of pressure (like diamond is created do to massive amounts of pressure on coal). Something MAJOR had to occur when these things died for the nessisary pressures to exist to fossilize the calcium found in the bones.


Fossils are rare because they require special circumstances like having the body or plant covered in sediment, or cutting off all oxygen, or having certain chemical environments. But yeah, they're rare...but not all caused by a unique single event





Since carbon dating is not accurate, through out whatyou think the timeline of Earth's history is and look at what you actually see.


Except...it is accurate





Deep layer full of dinosaur fossils, and larger then life insects and other such fossils. Then a layer of sediment indicating a lack of life for a time. Then a large area full of fossils of mamoths, sabertooth tigers, neanderthals and gaint sloths. Then a layer of sediment indicating something major happened. Then you have our current layer with regular bones decompossing at the normal rate over time.


Except...we still witness fossilization today





This is why chirstains believe th Earth is only 6000 years old, when in reality the Earth is potentially billions of years old, but mankind has only dwelt on it for 6000 years. it has only been 6000 years since God re-created the Earth for mankind to live, mankind could not have lived long in the world ruled by Lucifer with giant carnivours and massive insects etc.


Well, we know for a FACT that homo sapiens lived on earth for way longer than 60,000 years



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 





Neandrathal man and all saber tooth, mammoth, sloth etc. are fossils that were created during the flood of Noah, all that water would cause ample pressuer enough to fossilize the calcium of those beings. All neandrathal fossils are pre-flood mankind who died in Noah's flood.


And this is wrong too because Neanderthals lived alongside humans for quite some time


And of course there's ZERO objective evidence (as in geological evidence) a global flood ever happened. Even when earth was created 4.54b years ago, it was never fully covered in water.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by colin42
 


ok.. if i should have to prove God exists, then please, prove to me why he doesn't.
edit on 22-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)


Argument from ignorance


you do realize you do the exact same thing by asking me to show you evidence of god. then to turn around and call it a argument of ignorance, calls yourself ignorant. esp when saying


You're not really doing a good job though considering nothing you posted disproves evolution


im watching nat geo as we speak listing to that soothing voice tell me everything about man, excceepptttt showing any proof. they love to throw the "could", and "maybe's",and "we believe's" around. and if you knew anything, these are probably ways that you would describe SOMETHING THAT IS NOT FULLY SUPPORTED BY PROOF. its called a hypothesis prove it and ill believe it, but sadly since the 90's were still stuck on the same $h!t/. im glad you guys agree with the whole life is a part of evolution... butttt where you go wrong, just like back on page 30-40 when i started into this thread. its where you toss man into that bracket too. if there was 1. JUST 1 species that matched human inelegance id maybe listen to you while you beat that evolution horse, but there's none.

also


I guess you believe we made trouser pockets so we could hide our useless hands so no one would see we dont belong.

Really..?^

btw i can look up the language of the dead sea scrolls on my iphone and translate them cause its written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.oh and btw ( These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by colin42
 


OK let me rephrase- math supports the young earth theory in terms of reproduction leading to a world population of 7 billion present day.


No it doesn't


For the equation to make sense, modern humans would have had to be on earth at least 200,000 years...which is far far faaar more than those crazy young earth guys claim it is old


Either way, it's a moot discussion, we can date the earth to 4.54b years old with an error margin of only +/- 1%. So it's abundantly clear that young earth hypothesis is comedy gold



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


You clearly ignore facts, it's as if you stuck your fingers in your ears and closed your eyes while shouting "lalalalalalalalala can't hear you!!"


Look the objective evidence fully supports the theory, and we are ACTIVELY APPLYING IT IN MODERN MEDICINE!! If the theory were wrong, we couldn't develop all those vaccinations.

Nothing you post disproves it, you are merely stating our belief...and impressively show that you don't really understand the theory in the first place. Either that, or you understand and simply chose to ignore...which would be worse.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
enlighten me on the dna changes that you would look for in a hippo that would compare it to a whale? why? anybody who understands their own theory should be able to have this answered quick.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
by quick i also mean. that if you take more than 5 minutes on this. i know ur just on google
. yea tell me again why i dont grasp ur theory. but u got full understanding of it all
edit on 23-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
enlighten me on the dna changes that you would look for in a hippo that would compare it to a whale? why? anybody who understands their own theory should be able to have this answered quick.


Yes, because everyone who understands evolution has a giant database in their head where they memorize the entire tree of life including genome and biological changes


Please tell me you're joking, you can't be that daft to seriously expect people to memorize everyone as detailed as that


Let me return the favor by asking an equally dumb question: Tell me, how often does the word "the" appear in the bible? If it takes you longer than 5min to look up, you don't really know the bible!!

edit on 23-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


And this is why I said you can believe as you wish in this age. It is God's desire that you do so at this time. It is the only way will ever learn the ultimate lesson in life...

"I am wrong, God is right"

You can belittle very well though, and your desire to have a meaningful conversation is obviously not your concern.

I was answering the questions the OP asked for.

Evolution Wiki:
"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago."

This is where I stated that it originated from a common ancestor 3.7 billion years ago, that is the theory. But I do not desire to throw mud at anyone else. You do not have to agree with me. It is not my job to reveal truth it is God's.

There is massive evidence of a global flood if you understand what caused the flood, and where the water in the oceans was at the time of it. This is also the very reason why any pre-flood radiocarbon dating is way off. But this is not what the OP wanted and this discussion is not meant for these forums.

Yes neandrathal man (according to sciences definition) did live along side present day man (the way science defines it), because they were the same species, just a different race of mankind both living in the pre-flood world. See Nephelim.

Evolution Wiki:
"Highly energetic chemistry is believed to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[230] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[231] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[232] and the assembly of simple cells.[233]"

Here it is stated that complex (that is where the word came from) biochemisty that makes up life (currently) came from simpler (less complex) chemical reactions. Also here it states evolution says that life may have (asking you to make the assmption) originated by a selfreplicating molecule such as RNA (made up of lifeless amino acids, just as I explained) and the assemble of simple cells (simple to more complex).

Again it is fine that you do not agree, but please there is no need to be cruel in your responses, I have a Masters degree in science and am not some uneducated bible thumper who doesn't do his research before posting. I fully understand the current theory of Evolution even if I use language that you do not associate with the theory.
edit on 23-11-2011 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


guaranteed its probably on a test for biology 101 lol. thank you for probing my point. now you really need to ask yourself who's believe something that was just TOLD you. u just accept the first thing that (in mans head) has to makes sense. cause thats logic. just like them finding this skeleton (right now) on nat geo, they find a 3 1/2 foot tall skeleton called the hobbit. right now its being preached to me why this was a human blah blah blah. then you read about they real study..




Almost overnight, the find threatened to change our understanding of human evolution.

It would mean contemplating the possibility that not all the answers to human evolution lie in Africa, and that our development was more complex than previously thought.

Critics, however, dismissed the hobbit's discovery as nothing extraordinary. They continue to argue that the hobbit, just 3 feet tall with a brain the size of a baby's, was nothing more than a deformed human. Its strange appearance, they say, could be blamed on a range of genetic disorders that cause the body and brain to shrink.

The feud has played out in top scientific journals. But a growing consensus has emerged among experts on human origin that this is indeed a separate and primitive species that lived in relatively modern times - 17,000 to 100,000 years ago. The November issue of the highly respected Journal of Human Evolution was dedicated to the Flores findings and included a dozen studies supporting the hobbit as a new species.


read

my point is. man has always been man. just like very other species remains the same with small changes over time. man was made to be man.. and everything else the (relatively) the same if you dont start going off on the diversity tangent. yes ik there are small changes. but its still the same. thats what you guys dont grasp about evolution..



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


I am wrong, God is right

. in a nutshell here it is. the problem with man is we want to be god and we cant accept the fact that were not. its cognitive dissidence.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


100,573,245- check it. prove me wrong

the reason why evolutionists get away with what they can^ is just like this
edit on 23-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 





There is massive evidence of a global flood if you understand what caused the flood, and where the water in the oceans was at the time of it. This is also the very reason why any pre-flood radiocarbon dating is way off. But this is not what the OP wanted and this discussion is not meant for these forums.



Please present that "massive evidence"





Here it is stated that complex (that is where the word came from) biochemisty that makes up life (currently) came from simpler (less complex) chemical reactions. Also here it states evolution says that life may have (asking you to make the assmption) originated by a selfreplicating molecule such as RNA (made up of lifeless amino acids, just as I explained) and the assemble of simple cells (simple to more complex).


Evolution makes no such claim, that would be "abiogenesis", a different field. Please at least read the basic Wiki article about evolution, because you don't seem to understand what the theory is





Again it is fine that you do not agree, but please there is no need to be cruel in your responses, I have a Masters degree in science and am not some uneducated bible thumper who doesn't do his research before posting. I fully understand the current theory of Evolution even if I use language that you do not associate with the theory.


I'm not belittling your lack of knowledge. Nothing wrong with not knowing. There's tons of stuff I don't know. What I do have a problem with is if people post good information, and it gets ignored. Which sadly is exactly what you're doing. You make it very clear that you don't understand what the theory entails, because you keep on bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with it.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


We know for a fact that homo sapiens wasn't always homo sapiens. We know that we evolved from homo heidelbergensis for example. Please at least read the basic Wiki article on human evolution



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


100,573,245- check it. prove me wrong

the reason why evolutionists get away with what they can^ is just like this
edit on 23-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)


Present evidence that this number is correct. If you can't, your answer simply isn't scientific.

Thanks for proving my point



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   


my point is. man has always been man. just like very other species remains the same with small changes over time. man was made to be man.. and everything else the (relatively) the same if you dont start going off on the diversity tangent. yes ik there are small changes. but its still the same. thats what you guys dont grasp about evolution..
reply to post by RebelRouser
 

So if everything was created as is with only small changes then you must believe, despite all the evidence that we actually did walk with dinosaurs.

You believe that all modern plants were around since the very begining.

This also would mean the enviroment has hardly changed as we were 'created and designed' to live in prehistoric times.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


100,573,245- check it. prove me wrong

the reason why evolutionists get away with what they can^ is just like this
edit on 23-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)


Present evidence that this number is correct. If you can't, your answer simply isn't scientific.

Thanks for proving my point


years of flied tests and 20 recounts



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join