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: 96
31
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
so in other words. because stuff is diverse and different from each other,. there is no God? how do u come to that? how do you know thats not what it planned it to do.

Nope. I never said that. Evolution and a creator could easily both be true, but thus far only 1 has objective evidence behind it. I'm saying that evolution is true, regardless of whether or not there is a creator. Most creationists in this thread seem to think that evolution goes against god, and automatically dismiss it, but why assume that? The only thing evolution rules out is the literal genesis 6 day creation story.


the fact is. you can tell me all day about evolution. but if it can just appear from thin air as you guys so surely believe. why can it not be duplicated? (without taking it from something already here). through years of research and trying to figure it out, why cant we do it?


Please find me any scientific research on evolution that claims anything just appeared out of thin air. We are talking about evolution here, are we not?



but you blindly put ur faith in the stuff just happening on its own like magic.

but you blindly put ur faith in the stuff being created by a deity like magic. Please show me the magic involved in evolution. That's a new one to me.


there has to be something that started it. something cant just come from nothing..

It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? This is the reason I'm not close minded about the concept of god or a creator. It has nothing to do with evolution, though.


btw dont u think if we were all little organisms like omeba (that dont differ from eachother), just decide they weren't feeling being identical to its amoeba brothers so it just decided to be something else on its own. like a tree instead of a fish. why wouldn't it be the same? or maybe just trees and people. why would it decide to be animals and insects and every crazy thing in between? its so complicated you cant even begin to understand it so u just force it to work by being blind.


Amoeba don't decided anything. Evolution has nothing to do with feelings or wanting anything. Why not actually read a book on evolution instead of making all these bogus claims that have nothing to do with it?




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I just had to throw in my two cents worth on this, even though it didn't involve me.



Nope. I never said that. Evolution and a creator could easily both be true, but thus far only 1 has objective evidence behind it. I'm saying that evolution is true, regardless of whether or not there is a creator. Most creationists in this thread seem to think that evolution goes against god, and automatically dismiss it, but why assume that? The only thing evolution rules out is the literal genesis 6 day creation story.
I think there is just as much objective evidence behind god being a space alien. Only microevolution has been observed and this does not prove macroevolution. I would believe in the process if the timeline were in the trillions of years. Unfortunatly that isn't possible on earth because earth is only 4 billion years old.

The problem I'm having with this theory is that our mtDNA clearly shows our species never dipped below tens of thousands. So where are the bones? There is simply no excuse when we can find dinasoaur bones. At least with the alien theory there is a very good excuse why its hard to get proof, they don't live here.




the fact is. you can tell me all day about evolution. but if it can just appear from thin air as you guys so surely believe. why can it not be duplicated? (without taking it from something already here). through years of research and trying to figure it out, why cant we do it?
It's a valid argument, and there is no excuse. Scientists have been observing microevolution but it appears that those changes are all within acceptable tolerences of the species. Like brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes etc... anyhow, a species has NEVER been observed just changing into another species, not even gradualy and any type of severe changes kills the species. I would like to point out that if macroevolution were real we would have many sub species of many species. We don't have a single evolved pair out of 5 million species on this planet. Interesting huh?

So we are just lacking mass bones of transgression, any proof of macroevolution, thousands if not millions of sub species for all 5 million species. Aside from those I guess you could say evolution is working fine.




but you blindly put ur faith in the stuff being created by a deity like magic. Please show me the magic involved in evolution. That's a new one to me.
Scientists have allready admitted though quantium physics that there is some type of intelligence behind it ALL. Now with that they aren't saying it was god, or trevor the giant celestial squid, but there is something out there. It would appear that every planet is formed and automatically has life on it, and is a balanced eco system.

Humans are not part of any eco system here on earth, mother nature is not OUR mother nature. If we up and died on this planet, nothing would miss us. The planet is in fact rejecting us, as we damage it more and more. Our demands on this planet are a result of living out of our element. We were placed here people, just like the bible says, earth is not our home. Somewhere there is a planet where we fit in, where we don't have to process food to fill a gap. A place where the conditions dont suffer just because we are trying to survive. A place where our needs are automatically met with the eco system. Thats not earth. It also says in the bible that many things have been provided for us, none of which are anything like what we would have on heaven. It would appear that our aleged creator made a mistake and didn't account (or he possible didn't care) for the fact that the planet will reject us and we will spend all of our lives adapting.




It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? This is the reason I'm not close minded about the concept of god or a creator. It has nothing to do with evolution, though.
You guys need to read the wiki page on mtDNA en.wikipedia.org...
It would appear that an important fact was intentionally left out. You see they claim that the whole genome has been mapped, they also claim to have found a common ancestor 200,000 years ago in this lineage. What they omitted was just how old we are. I think it was done because it's showing us to be older than earth, and well you know thats not going to fly with most people. It makes the scientists look like they don't know how to date things. Maybe they don't want to scare people. Either way, it means we aren't from here.


edit on 5-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


which in my opinion is purely subconscious. you dont want to have to feel responsible for doing anything bad, or feel like you should even strive to be good, and by good, i mean things like going out of your way to help people or along lines like that. its much easier to accept a more comfortable belief and connect the dots you want. but when you do that you are cheating yourself. you will never see the big picture.

Here we go. After months of beating around the bush, we finally get to the center of the shrubbery maze. And it's the same ultimate argument that it always comes down to in the end -- evolution is wrong because it is amoral.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


why can it not be duplicated? (without taking it from something already here). through years of research and trying to figure it out, why cant we do it?

So you're evidence for creationism is that we don't know yet, so evolution is wrong? I'm going to let Neil deGrasse Tyson field this one (Note: He was talking about a topic in physics, but it holds for evolutionary biology just as well.):


Does it mean if you don't understand something, and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? ... If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on. ... I don't even care if someone wants to say, "You don't understand that, God did it." ... What would bother me is if you were so content in that answer, that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you're content God did it ... you're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Did you miss all the times in this topic where examples of observed instances of speciation were provided? Here, I'll provide the links again despite the fact that opponents to evolution never actually read the pages and continue with their false claims.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

As for your reasons why humans don't belong on Earth... The Earth doesn't provide those things for any other animal so why do you expect it to provide it for humans? Other species have individual die from starvation. Other animals affect their environment in ways that can be seen as detrimental, such as a beaver knocking down trees to build a dam or a lion killing a gazelle for food. The environment is not tailored to one specific species and that is what drives evolution. Every species changes their environment, but at the same time the environment is changing every species. Humanity does what every other species on the planet does, just on a much larger scale as we are capable of adapting to any environment.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
so in other words. because stuff is diverse and different from each other,. there is no God? how do u come to that? how do you know thats not what it planned it to do. the fact is. you can tell me all day about evolution. but if it can just appear from thin air as you guys so surely believe. why can it not be duplicated? (without taking it from something already here). through years of research and trying to figure it out, why cant we do it? but you blindly put ur faith in the stuff just happening on its own like magic. there has to be something that started it. something cant just come from nothing.. btw dont u think if we were all little organisms like omeba (that dont differ from eachother), just decide they weren't feeling being identical to its amoeba brothers so it just decided to be something else on its own. like a tree instead of a fish. why wouldn't it be the same? or maybe just trees and people. why would it decide to be animals and insects and every crazy thing in between? its so complicated you cant even begin to understand it so u just force it to work by being blind.
edit on 5-12-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)


Where on earth do you get evolution = no god? Evolution says nothing about god. Your fear and doubt in your own faith is transfered to evolution because it shows a few stories are incorrect.

The rest of your rant can be answered with a couple of trips to wiki. Or refer to the many links that have been provided here that you appear not to have read. So still no answer to diversity?
edit on 5-12-2011 by colin42 because: extra



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I think people want answers, everyone is eager to find them too. People look everywhere. I looked to the stars and all the answers fell in my lap. Intervention does not necessarily explain how we were created, just that we were placed here. Aside, scientists have allready admitted that some type of divine power must have been present to make all of these creations. They were able to conclude this though quantium physics.

Seriously some of the evolution stuff that has been presented to me (not from you) makes me laugh. How in the world is it possible that a polar bear has interbred with a kodiac bear.
Well it must be evolution, I'm sure religious folks would say it was gods fault. I think what happened is a polar bear had sex with a kodiac bear. Whew, that was hard to figure out. They are both bears. They started as bears, mated as bears, and produced more bears.

The problem is that we don't know everything, and we think we do. I have come to a conclusion.
Evolution is not the only answer because we all would have had to come from slime, and where did the slime come from?
If a creator or many creators are the answer, then who made the creators?
I don't think humans could evolve from slime in zillions of years so there is a big problem.
It would appear that each planet is formed with life on it, in a balanced eco system. A good example is how humans don't fit in on earth. We are not part of any cycle of life on this planet, and in fact the planet is rejecting us. This is why I say we must have de-evolved because we were better off as primates.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Read "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins. Seriously, read it before you make another comment here. And if you do comment, make it "I'm in the middle of reading the book. This is what I think..."

It's getting ridiculous how little you understand evolution, and how quickly you move to dismiss it.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
What utter nonsense again



scientists have allready admitted that some type of divine power must have been present to make all of these creations
Please give a link. Some proof scientists admitted some sort of 'divine power' exists



I have come to a conclusion. Evolution is not the only answer because we all would have had to come from slime, and where did the slime come from?

How many bleeding times do you have to be told that evolution has nothing to say about how life started. Say after me 'evolution does not explain creation'. Keep repeating it until it sinks in.



If a creator or many creators are the answer, then who made the creators?
Dont care. This thread is about you explaing diversity not us explaining your creator


I don't think humans could evolve from slime in zillions of years so there is a big problem.
Have you got a thing for slime? oh yes your 30 years study of the supernatural would have included ghostbusters



It would appear that each planet is formed with life on it, in a balanced eco system. A good example is how humans don't fit in on earth. We are not part of any cycle of life on this planet, and in fact the planet is rejecting us. This is why I say we must have de-evolved because we were better off as primates.
First show me where it is said anywhere that each planet is formed with life on it.

Excalibur gave you a good explanation for why your 'we dont fit on earth' is total nonsense. It is only one post above yours. Try reading it.

So you do not accept evolution but do accept 'de-evolution'????????
edit on 5-12-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Did you miss all the times in this topic where examples of observed instances of speciation were provided? Here, I'll provide the links again despite the fact that opponents to evolution never actually read the pages and continue with their false claims.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

As for your reasons why humans don't belong on Earth... The Earth doesn't provide those things for any other animal so why do you expect it to provide it for humans? Other species have individual die from starvation. Other animals affect their environment in ways that can be seen as detrimental, such as a beaver knocking down trees to build a dam or a lion killing a gazelle for food. The environment is not tailored to one specific species and that is what drives evolution. Every species changes their environment, but at the same time the environment is changing every species. Humanity does what every other species on the planet does, just on a much larger scale as we are capable of adapting to any environment.
I'm sorry but that link you provided seem to be offering more against speciation then for it. If there was a specific part you liked can you highlight it and send it to me.

Most other animals are actually provided with what they need. You are confusing my statment with it being handed over on a platter. If its not there to begin with, we find ourselves trying to make things that are missing in our intended diet. Let me make an example for you. Milk, does a body good. Why are we relying on cows to make milk when we should be getting it from our mothers. Milk gets fortified, pastureized, and homogenized. We sure are going through a lot of trouble for this milk. You might miss the big picture here. It's because something is lacking in our intended diet, in other words, a nice supply of milk is probably easily accesable on our home planet.

And you are correct about us adapting. Your just missing the purpose behind it. We aren't adapting because we want to, we are adapting because we have to. See the difference?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Actually, there's no good medical reason for us to be drinking milk past infancy. They say it's for calcium and Vitamin D, but getting sun exposure will generate Vitamin D. Your skin tone is dictated by how much sun you and your recent ancestors got. Sounds like adaption to this planet if you ask me. We thrive on animal fat, marrow, and vegetables. We are scavengers, and we have the ability to run, climb, sneak, and build tools to make up for a lack in strength and agility.

There's no reason to assume we didn't adapt to this planet, just like every other organism. The reason they seem "provided for" is because all the ones who couldn't survive their environments died. Only the ones who had the most stable lives survived and spread their genes. This means that only the organisms which "fit" their environment will live.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
yes it all comes down to morals. thats what separates us from animals. why does nothing else have morals like a human. if a dogs brother tries eating out of his bowl theres been stories of the dogs fighting until one is dead. a human (unless tapped) will never do that. and even if he is nuts he still knows what hes doing. my only evolution beef is giving nature credit for man. we clearly dont fit in with the other million species around us. all transitional fossils u guys present can be argued by scientist that its either a man or an ape. no damning evidence anywhere. show me more pics. idc cause i come to the same conclusion with all of em. u show me one with a human skeleton with a monkey tail and baboon length arms and maybeee ill start hearing u out. but in reality


If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on


replace God with evolution here and u got the right idea. its you guys that have stonewalled. u keep peddling the same crap at us that's still accepted/and denied at the same time by many people. a.k.a. not solid evidence

then once u figure out that whole mess u started and start realizing just because nat geo presents a show where computer animated grasslands flood in like a tsunami of grass that sweep over the earth does not make it factual. what, did these man to be apes just wake up one morning and their tree was an island in the middle of the grasslands? they would move with the jungle. trees dont just disappear and get replaced with grass fast enough to not give the monkeys enough time to stay with the jungle setting they live in. its even better when they show u real footage of monkeys living exactly like that too. in a tree in the middle of the grasslands and stilll not becoming humans? whats their deal? that atmosphere right? cause back then it was easier with the old atmosphere..walk on 2 feet? to this day no monkey has ever made that transition. put them wherever u want and $1000 says it still wont happen. its scientifically proven its uncomfortable and they just wont do it (aside for more than a few seconds) they literally cannot function that way. so why would many generations just decide they'd sacrifice that pain to stay safe. now why wouldn't any other spices have the same dilemma? if u can buy a fish becoming a man over a long enough period of time, then why cant a gazelle grow monkey arms and climb trees to stay away from a predator? like ive said many times. i know evolutions real. but ur version of it and mine differ extremely. there's no species becoming a completely different species out there. i mean realllly change. like a rabbit to a fox, or a bear to a buffalo. this is the same concept u agree with. but



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I fail to see how those links disprove speciation when they are giving observed examples of speciation. As for your milk comment, you couldn't have picked a worse example. The truth is the ability to process lactose is relatively new for humans, which is why there is such a high prevalence of lactose intolerance. It is through evolution that we are capable of consuming lactose at all. Furthermore, milk can be consumed without being processed. The primary purpose of those processes is to extend its shelf life, so instead of milk going bad after a few days it can last weeks.

Your final statement also shows that you still have no idea what evolution is. Evolution is not a conscious process for the most part. No species is evolving because of desire but because of necessity. When an environment changes individuals of a species will seek out a mate who are better adapted to surviving the new environment. The hope is that these traits will then pass on to the offspring giving them a better chance at reaching maturity and producing offspring of their own. As this continues new traits will become prevalent in the species until the point where they would be no longer able to mate with those individuals who existed before the change in environment. This is speciation or, as Creationists like to refer to it, macroevolution.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I understand it completly, I don't see the theory every being applied to humans.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Actually, there's no good medical reason for us to be drinking milk past infancy. They say it's for calcium and Vitamin D, but getting sun exposure will generate Vitamin D. Your skin tone is dictated by how much sun you and your recent ancestors got. Sounds like adaption to this planet if you ask me. We thrive on animal fat, marrow, and vegetables. We are scavengers, and we have the ability to run, climb, sneak, and build tools to make up for a lack in strength and agility.

There's no reason to assume we didn't adapt to this planet, just like every other organism. The reason they seem "provided for" is because all the ones who couldn't survive their environments died. Only the ones who had the most stable lives survived and spread their genes. This means that only the organisms which "fit" their environment will live.
Well survival of the fittest for sure. You totally missed the milk reasons. Yes your most likely right about it only being needed for kids. The point was, why are we drinking it from cows rather than from our mothers? It's very complex but I'll break it down. She isn't getting the milk she needs to produce it to feed it to her babys. We have relied on milk from our existence here on earth. It's not a match made for us, to be drinking milk. Lactose is just a 4th process and isn't even required for most peeps. The reason why we are drinking milk is because there is something that is missing in our INTENDED diet. We use processing or adaptation to allow our use of it. It's a cold dose of reality thats easy to miss.

Milk from a cow was not intended for human consumption so we process the hell out of it so we can use it. We only need it because something is missing that we need. I'm not saying don't drink milk, we need it, but back home we wouldn't.

There is a lot of thought put into seeing whats going on here. The only thing I can tell you is you have to really put some serious thought into it. The only reason why its so deep is because its all we have ever known, and all we have ever done, so we just accept it as the norm, but its not. Forms of adaptation like processing cows milk, would not be necessary on our home planet. We would have what our intended diet calls for. If you believe in a creation process or not, it only stands to reason that whoever, or whatever made you, would also allow your needs to be met.

I like to look at the ant eater. Check this guy out. He has a long snout to smell for the ants, long claws to dig up the ant hills, and a long sticky tounge to grab ants out of deep places. You could never question that this little guy was created with the whole idea of eating ants. And if he was ever smart enough to actually think about himself one day, do you think he would have any problem figuring out what his purpose in life is? No, its all to obvious. He is home, and fits in very well here. It would be the same way if we were on our home planet. There would be things that match up with our needs without even thinking about it. Keep in mind that god supposedly set us up with some things to help us out, and the cow might be one of them. However nothing here is from our home and that is made clear.

Probably just like with noahs arc, we were set up with some things to help us out. From a technical point of view, we are screwed because these things were not meant specifically for US. Again each planet probably has a balanced eco system, and we are not only out of ours, but have been provided with things from other systems. It's very technical but once you see whats going on, you realize the horrible position we have been placed in. Try to think of any other species here on earth that struggles with day to day life, and I'll provide you with a plethora of reasons how it doesn't even begin to compare to us.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Can you please reply with my quotes, now I know why people were getting mad at me, its hard to keep track of 4 different conversations.
If you don't know how, just ask and Ill explain.


I fail to see how those links disprove speciation when they are giving observed examples of speciation. As for your milk comment, you couldn't have picked a worse example. The truth is the ability to process lactose is relatively new for humans, which is why there is such a high prevalence of lactose intolerance. It is through evolution that we are capable of consuming lactose at all. Furthermore, milk can be consumed without being processed. The primary purpose of those processes is to extend its shelf life, so instead of milk going bad after a few days it can last weeks.
The first link was doing nothing but dissproving speciation. I wonderd if you just had the wrong link. Speciation has never been observed in humans, maybe that will settle that.

Lactose is a 4th process that wasn't even included, but its just another point to add to my view. We sure do process the hell out of milk don't we? I think had we evolved at all, our bodies would accept lactose, not reject it. AHH now we get to the point. Milk is suppose to be drank straight from the teat of the cow. So now your telling me that every home that has a baby should just simply have to have a cow in the back yard for fresh milk. Sounds good on a farm, but thats a hell of a lot of cows, and let me add the most important part. We would be so screwed on the stock we have had we of not genetically bred them. So its adaptation, for adaptation, for adaptation. Had we of evolved, we would have accepted these circumstances rather than circumvent them. I hope your not blind to whats going on here.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
For all the "Hardcore Creationists" out there. Let me show you to my good friend Potholer54.

He has many videos on why some creationist theories are not only wrong, but for the most part scientifically inept dribble.

Evolution made easy

That is video 7 of the series I think he has 25 they are all well worth a look and I suggest before you start bashing evolutionist, you actually LOOK and the factual evidence before injecting your faith.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true, and vice versa.
I hope creationist and evolutionist can come to some sort of understanding with each other and not just spout out untrue facts about each others way of thinking and what each ones way of teaching says.

While either theory is not 100% proven, Evolution does have the objectionable advantage over religion in that it bases it's findings on repeatable, testable experiments and not just a couple of pages in a book.


This is a link to the full playlist.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


He's right about milk not being necessary after infancy. Its purpose is to provide the child with nutrients until it is able to feed itself. It also passes on the mother's antibodies to the child. If you look at other mammals they stop consuming milk after infancy. The only reason humans continue to consume milk into adulthood is because it is a readily accessible source of vitamins and minerals. It is much easier to raise a herd of cattle than it is to do the hunting and foraging necessary to receive the same nutrients. Humans aren't even unique in their lactose intolerance. For example dogs, ferrets, and really most adult mammals lose the ability to process lactose. Does this mean they all aren't native to Earth as well?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Your final statement also shows that you still have no idea what evolution is. Evolution is not a conscious process for the most part. No species is evolving because of desire but because of necessity. When an environment changes individuals of a species will seek out a mate who are better adapted to surviving the new environment. The hope is that these traits will then pass on to the offspring giving them a better chance at reaching maturity and producing offspring of their own. As this continues new traits will become prevalent in the species until the point where they would be no longer able to mate with those individuals who existed before the change in environment. This is speciation or, as Creationists like to refer to it, macroevolution.
Sounds like there is some intelligence in the choice here. So its because of necessity. So it was necessary for us to scientifically figure out how milk needed to be processed for a longer shelf life, rather than our bodies adapting? Are you trying to say that adaptation is a form of specieation?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'd agree that if you're looking for meaning out of the bible, its far more likely god was a group of aliens rather than a deity, but that's just my opinion. It should be noted that quantum physics is highly theoretical. It's mostly just math equations. There isn't really any objective evidence of other dimensions, subspace particles, vibrating strings or anything of the sort. There very well could be, however.
edit on 5-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join