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.

 

If we evolved from monkeys and evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys today?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible - a great page on the falsehoods of evolution - the "theory" can be reviewed HERE

A theory is just that, remember - a "theory".

It is not proven, it is not a scientific "law" - it is merely
someone's (Darwin I suppose) "opinion".

As long as there are monkeys, or any other animal for that matter,
still around, evolution will always be wrong.




posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
Just an fyi - the whole notion of "evolution" is from the same entity that brought us the notion that there was more than one God - and more than one Bible. And that sin really didn't matter as long as we are all comfy and happy.

Yep, satan.

Be careful what, and who, you follow throughout your life - it will be affecting your eternal life.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by nomorecruelty]

extordinary claims require extrordinary evidence sir
and beleive none of what you here and half of what you see
except when you have this extrordinary evidence.
instead of posting a link why don't you type of a few posts and make an essay in your own words to prove your point



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 


To be honest, I have typed out my views on this so many times on different threads, I am exhausted - if *you* would like to compare the research, you have access to Google, and the Bible.

If after that you still want to ask me questions or debate, I'll be up for it.

I'm not telling you what you, or anyone "should" or "shouldn't" do - all I'm saying is to be careful that you are not getting swept along the secular current that will only wash you down the eternal drain.



And I'm not a "sir" - I fall under the female label.

As my sig states................



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
And I'm not a "sir" - I fall under the female label.

As my sig states................


well i apoligize for that

but however heres some scripture for you

“And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

evilbible.com



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


First, has anyone noticed that the OP seems to have given up on this thread?


nomorecruelty, your arguments make it seem as though you believe - even if you thought evolution were true - that evolution has ceased altogether. In other words, that every species in existance has reached it's absolute final form.

Before I continue, I want to say I don't *entirely* buy into the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism. I do however believe evolution does happen through natural selection over vast periods of time. It just happens that we live in a mostly physical manifestation of this universe - not to mention relatively short lifespans - and certain physical laws do exist. However, there's absolutely no reason that the modification, genesis or introduction of certain species on(to) our planet by an "outsider" intelligence isn't possible. There's evidence supporting both theories here, but neither prove anything absolutely. Both parties have little more to go by than faith and both present more or less believable evidence (though I have to say, even though I enjoy reading and studying the Bible, it's more of a work of fiction and philosophy to me). This is *especially* true when looking into specifically human evolution. For example, you still find out-of-time-and-place artefacts, like hammerheads, made of a steel-grade that's unreachable by even modern science, embedded in cretaceous era stone.

Anyway, back to my original quarrel with your posts. Either way, the fact that genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next points out that evolution does occur, virtually unobservable within one generation, and will continue to do so 'till the end of life as we know it. Every conception is both a miracle and a mutation - the word "mutation" has an undeserved reputation, being viewed as practically synonymous with "abomination" rather than modification. Every species is a transitional stage and a separate species in it's own right. That's why there are no "transitional fossils", per se. No child is an exact replica of either parent, nor a predictable combination of both. None of this shuts out the possibility that life was brought to or modified to whatever degree on Earth.

That's all I can think of now at 2am. Good night and cya tomorrow!

EDIT: Corrected "qualm" to "quarrel".

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Taraxacum]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Taraxacum
 


The common DNA in all organisms on the planet shows, rather strongly, that all species share a common ancestor, hence no individual species being brought to Earth. We either all were brought here, when we were the simplest of microbes, or none of us were.

And creationism is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a guess, and that's being kind.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Taraxacum
 




And creationism is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a guess, and that's being kind.



It is a conclusion from the assumption that "God did it".
Creationism has nothing supporting it but a old book that says PI equals 3 and the sun revolves around earth.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
Show me fossil evidence of one transgenic species. They never have and don't exist.


What about the Flying fish as a living transitional species?

I mean a fish that can jump out of the water, and fly in the air for dozens of seconds, even maintaining flight by tapping on the water with its' tail?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by DJM8507]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The OPs opening questions already shows me he/she is not intellectually capable of "getting" how big the idea of evolution is.

No better than a monkey can get physics equations.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun

And creationism is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a guess, and that's being kind.


It is a conclusion from the assumption that "God did it".
Creationism has nothing supporting it but a old book that says PI equals 3 and the sun revolves around earth.

Usually, not always, but usually, people that say "it's just an old book" have never read the entire Bible. If they did, and then researched Biblical archeology, they would probably have an entirely different view of what is fact and what is fiction.

And nowhere in the Bible does it talk about PI - although there is quite a bit of astronomy discussed.

If you want to watch a six parter (video) on Bible Archaeology, you can do so by clicking Here

It's pretty interesting -

And then there's the physical proof of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah - on video - where the cities are exactly where the Bible says they are. It's an eye opening video as well - you can view that one Here



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJM8507

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
Show me fossil evidence of one transgenic species. They never have and don't exist.


What about the Flying fish as a living transitional species?

I mean a fish that can jump out of the water, and fly in the air for dozens of seconds, even maintaining flight by tapping on the water with its' tail?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by DJM8507]


The flying fish is only proof that "flying" is a trait of that species - it doesn't mean that the fish is in the process of evolving into a bird or anything else 'sky borne'.

If that were true, we could also say that a jumping dog, when in midair, is in the process of "evolving" into a bird.

It makes no sense -

But I agree - there is no physical proof that anything is "evolving" in the sense of Darwin's "evolution"......... theory.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hoppinmad1
 


Hoppinmad i reccomend you check out www.answersincreation.org so you can hear the answers to your questions come from actual creationists who believe in evolution.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Taraxacum
 


I pointed out in an earlier post that I do believe there is what some might consider to be "evolution" within certain species, but only within that particular species.

My earlier example was to consider a tiger like feline mating with a smaller type of feline - and resulting in a smaller, more domesticated cat.

Or a wolf mating with a smaller, more domesticated canine - which would probably result in another type of "canine" but not into another species "type".

I.e. mankind is man - you won't see a human evolving into a fish, bird or a tree. Our offspring, when mated with other humans, will only result in our species - maybe with different colored hair, different facial features, different mentalities, etc ......... but the changes will only be within the human species.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Our primate hosts evolved as per normal evolutionary rules ,UNTIL we were put into them via genetic modifications.


We evolved TO primates and then were modified and cut loose to reproduce and in AN UNNATURAL ACT FOOL EVOLUTION INTO THINKING WE BELONGED AND WE BEGAN TO OUTREPRODUCE ALL OTHER PRIMATE BASED GROUPS.And via competition make them extinct,ALL THE WHILE NEVER EVER EVOLVING PAST THE POINT WE WERE MODIFIED TO REACH.

This is because the only time we had the ability to naturally evolve was prior to modification,WHEN WE WERE 100% PRIMATE.


If we look at todays monkeys we can rest assured that without modification THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE WOULD BE IN FACT THIS IS OUR ABSOLUTE BEST EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTIONS RATE OF PROGRESS,how much have monkeys changed EXCLUDING any homo sapien lines.


Natural evolution is very slow and requires environmental change.

We will never evolve again because we dont have the ability to do it because we have stepped outside of the boundaries of our environments influences using technology.Our technology is how we stepped outside the bounds of evolution,and because technology enables us to defeat or negate the need for the advantages of evolution,we know that technology was specifically designed for us ,as unnatural as we are,AS MODIFIED PRIMATES THAT IS.

Avatar is old history man.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Former atheist Lee Strobel explains the "variation" issue better than most people - you can view a three minute video of his Here

He talks about fish, and different variations of canines, Darwin - etc.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by one4all
 


So then who "cut us loose" and "modified" us to start breeding that supposedly resulted in ape turning into man?

And how did "'evolution" know to stop at man - why are there no men with wings or gills or feathers?

Who was your science teacher?




posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by one4all
 


And how did "'evolution" know to stop at man - why are there no men with wings or gills or feathers?


because we don't need them were adapting with technology, we have jet planes to fly and submarines and boats to travel the water. also insects are proof of evolution they drop organs they don't need and grow one that suit their envirenment



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I find the ouevre of some of these posts dreadfull.The Monkey is a vessel for intoxicating joy and emotion,not a shallow debating point.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Usually, not always, but usually, people that say "it's just an old book" have never read the entire Bible. If they did, and then researched Biblical archeology, they would probably have an entirely different view of what is fact and what is fiction.


most athiests have read the entire bible and/or own one



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by one4all
 


And how did "'evolution" know to stop at man - why are there no men with wings or gills or feathers?


because we don't need them were adapting with technology, we have jet planes to fly and submarines and boats to travel the water. also insects are proof of evolution they drop organs they don't need and grow one that suit their envirenment


A species that regenerates does so within their own particular species - i.e. a starfish's tentacle is pulled off - it regrows back as an arm - not a leg or wing.

That still isn't "evolution" in the sense of how Darwin, or atheists, are referring to.

"Adaptation", "regeneration", etc.,aren't what Darwin was talking about - he was trying to say that each species turns into another species - which isn't possible.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join