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.

 

The great Assumption, I mean Evolution

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
First let me state I do believe that organisms have the ability to evolve so do not provide evidence that only proves that a bacteria changes but still remains a bacteria. Also please leave plants out of this because speciation of plants is based on assumptions as well. Example, plants and animals have the same evolutionary boundaries.

www.wayhome.org...
1. Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).
2. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated.
3. Multicellular animals (metazoa) evolved from unicellular or single-celled organisms (protozoa or protists).
4. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
5. Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.
6. Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.
7. Miller-Urey experiment
[1.] The composition of the early Earth was different than it is today.
[2.] The proper kind and amount of energy was present
[3.] More product was produced than was broken down by the harsh environment.
[4.] The same processes that produced simple, organic molecules in a closed experimental apparatus also functioned in the open, uncontrolled system found on the early earth.

8. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old www.cs.unc.edu... www.icr.org... www.earthage.org...
[1.] The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
[2.] There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
[3.] The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
[4.] The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

9. Dinosaurs did not live with man. www.drdino.com... www.genesispark.com... www.allaboutcreation.org...
10. The galaxy is 14 billion miles in diameter www.answersingenesis.org...
11. Uniformitarian’s proves evolution www.creationinthecrossfire.com...
12. Human Endogenous Retroviruses prove evolution www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are 20 assumptions made by evolutionist, most of which they claim are facts. The point of this thread is two-fold. First, allow evolutionist the opportunity to present any fact that proves any of the above are indeed provable facts and not assumptions. Second, allow creationists to add to my list.

How is it that anyone believes this as fact? Why is this taught in school as fact? Many scientist believe in creation and they did the reasearch not just the reading. Why are creationist dissmissed as stupid? www.christiananswers.net...
Why does every bit of evidence for evolution prove evolution when every bit of evidence for creationsim proves nothing? Who makes the decision about what evidence proves evolution vs creationism?

edit on 24-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Carl sagan can explain it all to you in less than 10 minutes. Embrace reason and stop believing in fairy tales.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


How can an atheist, who's number 1 goal is to prove God is not real, be objective. Every bit of evidence makes him believe he has proven something that in fact is unproven. This is not science or intelligence. Most of the claims that he makes about natural occurrences can also be argued prove intelligent design. If something can be argued by both sides of the argument without either side being able to prove the argument than neither side has a right to claim ownership of said argument. However evolutionist do this every day.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
The world was created 1844 years ago by a space lion with one eye when he went for a crap.

Now try and give me proof that genesis was more accurate than my little theory.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   


Why does every bit of evidence for evolution prove evolution when every bit of evidence for creationsim proves nothing? Who makes the decision about what evidence proves evolution vs creationism?

edit on 24-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)


firstly, what proof of creationism, as far as i can tell there is none.

and secondly, i dont beleive that anything is proved as fact, we just take the information we have and use it to come to the most likely conclusion. in the future new information may be available (through new discoveries or the development of new technolagies) that will change our perspective on this arguement. although i think its very unlikely that any new evidence will make creationism the more likely scenario, not unless we find god himself/herself/itself.

thirdly, at the risk of being ridiculed, i think the Ancient Alien theory would explain some of them 'assumptions' and would kind of combine the 'evolution' and 'creation' theories, life forms were evolving and there was also intervention from above.

but these are of course just my opinions and some will agree, some will dissagree and some will neither agree or dissagree


edit on 24/9/2011 by DaveNorris because: spelling



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


My assumption is that you have made up your mind and will dismiss any evidence or argument that does not support your preconceived dogma (the antithesis of science) - including for example DNA, RNA, fossil record and radiometric dating. And I bet my assumption isn't far off the mark.

You say it is a false assumption to claim dinosaurs did not live alongside man. I say according to the geological record dinosaurs largely became extinct 65,000,000 years ago and that the earliest homonids that might be called human did not appear until around 2,000,000 years ago.

No fossils of any form of homonid have ever been found in the same strata as that in which dinosaur bones have been found, and vice versa.

Why then do you assume that humans did live alongside dinosaurs? And do you think humans lived alongside cynodonts as well?
edit on 24-9-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I just have to ask those who believe in creation, who created the creator? I mean if the creator is able to create all these amazing things in the universe, surely this being must have been created also.

If we argue something cant come from nothing, it goes against the logic of there being a creator as the creator must also have come from something?

This is where faith comes into it. You either have faith that the creator didn't need creating or have faith in the idea that one day science will be able to provide the answers.

at present science provides us with more evidence than religion with regards to evolution on the planet.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Atzil321
 


How can an atheist, who's number 1 goal is to prove God is not real, be objective. Every bit of evidence makes him believe he has proven something that in fact is unproven. This is not science or intelligence. Most of the claims that he makes about natural occurrences can also be argued prove intelligent design. If something can be argued by both sides of the argument without either side being able to prove the argument than neither side has a right to claim ownership of said argument. However evolutionist do this every day.


Is it the number 1 goal? I've not read that anywhere. Oh I see. here's another creationist telling Joe bloggs what Joe bloggs thinks.
edit on 24-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
im an atheist and i dont care, most of atheists dont care. but you bible bashers never quit trying to get us to see the light.
give it up already. both evolution and creationism theories are full of holes.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
i dont beleive that anything is proved as fact, we just take the information we have and use it to come to the most likely conclusion. in the future new information may be available (through new discoveries or the development of new technolagies) that will change our perspective on this arguement. although i think its very unlikely that any new evidence will make creationism the more likely scenario, not unless we find god himself/herself/itself.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by lewman
The world was created 1844 years ago by a space lion with one eye when he went for a crap.

Now try and give me proof that genesis was more accurate than my little theory.


The bible has fantasy drawings, you need fantasy drawings or what you say isn't true. not diagrams or photos showing the microscopic world because that's not good enough. If you don't have fantasy drawings what you say isn't true.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 




Who makes the decision about what evidence proves evolution vs creationism?


If some evidence can be interpreted both ways, then interpreration with fewer unproven entities is preferred (Occams Razor).

Creation: material universe, supernatural creator (unproven entity)
Evolution: material universe only

Evolution is preferred in this case.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by lewman
The world was created 1844 years ago by a space lion with one eye when he went for a crap.

Now try and give me proof that genesis was more accurate than my little theory.


The bible has fantasy drawings, you need fantasy drawings or what you say isn't true. not diagrams or photos showing the microscopic world because that's not good enough. If you don't have fantasy drawings what you say isn't true.


AMEN



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Why does every bit of evidence for evolution prove evolution when every bit of evidence for creationsim proves nothing? Who makes the decision about what evidence proves evolution vs creationism?

edit on 24-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



What evidence for creationism? There is no evidence. Perhaps one thing being the way bacteria get around. It appears they have something similar to design of an outboard motor as in engine, shaft and propeller. So of course which came first? Engine , shaft or propeller. it could be inteligent design. Or it could be a fluke. But really creationism has no proof.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


i already asked that question, no doubt you will be pointed in the direction of the closest bible



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
A god is something ancient people used to try and explain the world around them and also
their own existance as well as death. Science does that now and I find it hard it fathom
that some people still belive in a god today. I meen come on it's 2011



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


How can an atheist, who's number 1 goal is to prove God is not real, be objective.

This statement just proves that you understand as little about atheists and science in general as you do about evolution. Atheists aren't out to "prove God is not real". It's up to the believers to provide objective evidence that God, or any other god they happen to believe in, is real.


If something can be argued by both sides of the argument without either side being able to prove the argument than neither side has a right to claim ownership of said argument.

Except when one explanation relies on an "intelligent designer" for which there is no evidence. You don't see a difference between a scientific theory built on observed natural processes and a rebranding of creationism which can't even provide objective evidence for it's base assertion -- namely that a designer ever exists?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Evolution is one of the weakest and stupidest THEORIES out there. Darwin himself eventually said HE didn't even believe his own theory. There is absolutely NO proof in any way of this unfounded THEORY. However, there is much EVIDENCE indicating it is WRONG.

In the history of the world, everything that everyone "knew" has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong.

It is the height of hubris to assume that, "Everyone was always wrong before, but NOW we have it all figured out and we are RIGHT." This is just nonsense.

Nor do I believe in your wacked out bible creation THEORIES either.

Intelligent people always realize the definition of knowledge is, the more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know. Those of you who get stuck into dogma, are demonstrating a lack of sense.

I have been poring over this website for days now. It is a creationist website, so I take their CONCLUSIONS with a shaker full of salt. BUT, they do a great job of completely destroying the nonsense that is evolution THEORY.

Neither does this prove the biblical THEORY.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
OP

Just pointing out. Some of the issues you raise against evolution are about how life started. Nothing to do with evolution.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by steveknows
 


i already asked that question, no doubt you will be pointed in the direction of the closest bible


I already know my way. I've been sent there numerous times



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join