Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 19
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infi8nity
I have not looked into the subject to much but I have noticed ALLOT of evolution propaganda on TV. Mostly a weird dumb out of place character will say they do not believe in evolution, then a smart character will mock them and make them dumb.
Basically the message is your stupid if you dont believe in evolution.
Who wants to be stupid? Of coarse you dont...
So with out even looking into the topic or knowing opposing idea's you make up your mind because you dont want to seem stupid.
Now with that aside.

What is the other end of the argument? Can some one that has deeper knowledge on the topic please post some good info?

From what I know we have found homosapien bones that are older then they should be. We have mega monolithic structures all over the world dated at times when cave men are supposed to exist.
We have a MASSIVE COVER UP of these structures that make it seem as if these people wear primitive when the evidence shows they wear beyond our capability's.
If they cover up these culters why wouldn't they cover up our origins?
Why dont we have a wide verity of species that we can view in the evolution process?
At one time homosapian and multiple older versions co existed why dont we see that with other animals?
Crocodiles have been around since dinosaurs yet they are still the same. Masquto's have been found perfectly reserved in amber from the dino era yet they are still the same. If we evolved from aps then why dont ape like human's exist?

Please post some good info if you know something.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Infi8nity because: (no reason given)


Infinity,

I don't have much time to answer this question directly. But since you asked sincerely, I thought I'd share these with you:

The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking

and:

Was Life Created?

These are meant for sincere people looking for truth, so I thought you would find them useful in starting to answer your questions.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by definity
 


Sometimes evolution happens in my fridge when I forget the Chinese take out food ...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Obviously these guys have never come across mould.
But you need the right proteins and forms of energy to create the molecular and atomic bonds necessary to life. Thus a peanut butter jar sitting on the shelf will probably not create life (never minding preservatives and such in it) like leaving a rock in the sun will not produce life in a few months / years.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I believe in evolution but also believe in a grand CREATOR part of different dimensions.

Evolution is very real, our body always adapts in a long period of time, however we evolved from monkeys to intelligent human beings in a very short time considering the amount of years it takes to evolve slightly.

The question is what made that boost in our evolution. I suspect alien engineering activity.


Every one has the right to believe what they want, but it is your fault if you don't question yourself and your ideas.
edit on 31-1-2013 by StarBoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by definity
 


Oh my ! what a great video

at 50 seconds the voice over states that no new life will occur unless contaminated by another outside source .
Great you highlighted the theory of panspermia as to how life occured on earth

They then go on to say how the whole food industry depends on it , yet the whole food industry depends entirely on the food process where preservatives and the actual manufacturing process stops any contaminants getting into the food or preserve it from decay.

Whats more annoying is that they dont take into consideration that the organic matter actually requires , heat and electricity and many more varaibles to create life than just a jar of peanut butter being left alone on a shelf for 100 years !

most ridiculous explanation Ive ever heard.

The woman in the video " the scientific theory of evolution is a fantasy" yes not considering the fantasy if divine intervention. The theory of evolution based on millions of years of actual physical evidence to back it up



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SubAce
infinity,

I don't have much time to answer this question directly. But since you asked sincerely, I thought I'd share these with you:

The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking

and:

Was Life Created?

These are meant for sincere people looking for truth, so I thought you would find them useful in starting to answer your questions.


Sincere people? Yeah aslong as your a Christian right?

Two documents presenting themselves as scientific, but then attempt to shape and squeeze that science into a bronze age story book.

This is dishonesty of the highest order, and it only feeds the delusions of those already deluded. And that's exactly what you have attempted to do.

Sincere.....



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


So since you're laughing, that means you're laughing at yourself?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I don't believe in spontaneous life from a dirt bowl of warm waters containing proteins then being hit by lightning and magically we get ATS and the Government and everything else.

If you believe that then your just as bad as any religious Zealot

What bugs me about evolution is if you take for example an Amoeba,some say 3+ billion years old then why has this thing not evolved.Why are there still little amoebae floating about waiving their flagelli with impunity





posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
What bugs me about evolution is if you take for example an Amoeba,some say 3+ billion years old then why has this thing not evolved.
Who says it hasn't evolved?

Who says it's 3 billion years old?

Besides, evolution occurs as an adaptation to the environment. If the organism is well suited to the environment, there is no need to adapt any changes.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by canDarian
 


Im sure its a much more complicated process than just lightning hitting a pool of mud with organic matter ! at the same time who is to say that it wasnt that . Also in order to create the smallest and simplest forms of life it may just be that easy !

they are all just theories anyways

what I find more interesting is that everything in nature conforms to the golden ratio , which in itself is a sign of intelligent design . Now im not saying that this was divine intervention but it hints at something greater within everything .

I definitely think that humans were not the result of divine intervention , but intervention of some sort !



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
I don't believe in spontaneous life from a dirt bowl of warm waters containing proteins then being hit by lightning and magically we get ATS and the Government and everything else.


If you question science magic you can get labeled a christian creationist who thinks the earth is 6 thousand years old.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by canDarian
I don't believe in spontaneous life from a dirt bowl of warm waters containing proteins then being hit by lightning and magically we get ATS and the Government and everything else.


If you question science magic you can get labeled a christian creationist who thinks the earth is 6 thousand years old.


Please . . . expand. What is this science magic? Are you using the standard definition for magic? What supernatural or paranormal forces are at work in science? You don't have to be a christian to be ignorant in science, but generally the people who are do so because it goes against a faith based belief. Extraterrestrial origins or religious dogma . . . if you want those to be taken seriously, all you have to do is produce physical evidence for those claims.

Why would you be shocked people scoff at things that can't produce evidence? I guarantee you do it everday, on various subjects. The ridicule comes when people scoff at things that have a lot of physical evidence to back it up.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infi8nity
I have not looked into the subject to much but I have noticed ALLOT of evolution propaganda on TV. Mostly a weird dumb out of place character will say they do not believe in evolution, then a smart character will mock them and make them dumb.
Basically the message is your stupid if you dont believe in evolution.
Who wants to be stupid? Of coarse you dont...
So with out even looking into the topic or knowing opposing idea's you make up your mind because you dont want to seem stupid.


It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of denying proven science. Evolution has mountains of evidence behind it. If you choose to ignore it for some religion that has ZERO evidence behind it, then that's your problem.


From what I know we have found homosapien bones that are older then they should be. We have mega monolithic structures all over the world dated at times when cave men are supposed to exist.
We have a MASSIVE COVER UP of these structures that make it seem as if these people wear primitive when the evidence shows they wear beyond our capability's.

What homo sapien bones? Older than 200,000 years, please post them. Megalithic structures have ZERO to do with evolution. Humans have been on the earth a long time. Who knows, maybe they did have a society in the past.


Why dont we have a wide verity of species that we can view in the evolution process?

We do. Genetic mutations can be measured and observed in every creature on earth. If you could find a single species that this does not happen in, you could falsify evolution. Unfortunately that won't happen.


At one time homosapian and multiple older versions co existed why dont we see that with other animals?

We DO. Look at all the varieties, of felines, horses, deer, birds, fruit flies, wasps, etc etc etc. You can't just pretend they don't exist to suit a world view.


Crocodiles have been around since dinosaurs yet they are still the same. Masquto's have been found perfectly reserved in amber from the dino era yet they are still the same. If we evolved from aps then why dont ape like human's exist?

When a creature is well suited for the environment they will not change much because there is no pressure, ie natural selection. If humans evolved from fish, why aren't their fish like humans? If humans evolved from a newt why aren't there newt like humans. You aren't addressing anything about evolution and we have discovered lots of hominid species. Creatures die out. 99% of all creatures to ever exist have gone extinct. You aren't just going to find every possible combination out there.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by canDarian
 


Im sure its a much more complicated process than just lightning hitting a pool of mud with organic matter ! at the same time who is to say that it wasnt that . Also in order to create the smallest and simplest forms of life it may just be that easy !

they are all just theories anyways

what I find more interesting is that everything in nature conforms to the golden ratio , which in itself is a sign of intelligent design . Now im not saying that this was divine intervention but it hints at something greater within everything .

I definitely think that humans were not the result of divine intervention , but intervention of some sort !


Actually, the "golden ratio" is not evidence of design or "design" by intelligent means would be taken more seriously. Granted, even though this mathmatical pattern was evident to the greeks who came up with the concept, the reasons for nature using this mathmatical principle was not. However, we do understand it today. Today, we call these mathmatical sequences fractals (gr, fibonacci, madelbrot, they are all the same).


The laws of fractals governs not only the numerous structures found within ourselves but also plays an important role in the evolution of life. From the first stirring of life from the chaotic interface between solid, liquid, and gases, the principles of fractals and chaos were involved. The very foundations of life, the DNA and RNA, is in itself fractals.



When a structure is fractal in nature, it can be described with simple and iterative rules, no matter how complex it may seem by Euclidean standards.


Economy of energy, self-similarity, etc . . . are the reason nature uses fractals. It's a self-replicating infinite loop that produces self-similar, but never exactly identical, iteration. The greeks, and apparently others, couldn't wrap their minds around it because, although it was everywhere in nature:

When a structure is fractal in nature, it can be described with simple and iterative rules, no matter how complex it may seem by Euclidean standards.


Fractals are the reason we have such a great understanding of DNA structure and genetics . . . it's why we have made such huge strides in understanding the genome over the last couple decades.

Seeing as we didn't understand these mathmatical principles until we had supercomputers and could build various models to test . . . it's understandable that this natural principle fell under the explanation of the divine. However, we understand quite well now that there is nothing supernatural about "the golden ratio". The problem is that people cling to the supernatural instead of actually reading (real) work on the subject. We'd rather watch a youtube video, read a blog, or read a new-age book that makes us feel good . . . Math is boring.

If your position is that "aliens" designed us . . . that must mean they designed the whole universe because we see it even in galaxy formation. And if these aliens didn't need a designer . . . why did we? If you want design to be taken seriously . . . show some physical evidence of exterrestrial intervention . . . it should be easy, with what we know about genetics these days. Intentional events are easily detetected when cross analyzing DNA.

EDIT - I should add. Another reason, in the past, we could "measure" this ratio/mean/section, but couldn't define the purpose was because you have to view/think of fractals in 3D, not 2D as it appears somtimes (the inside of a nautilus shell). Euclidian geo was based on 2D, so while measurable, function could not be determined.
edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prime80
The Different Types Of Evolution

The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. OrganicEvolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kindsof species.

Observations about the different types of Evolution

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.

- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.

- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.

- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.


I gave up after page 6; too much of the same stuff.

The above quote is the best argument for evolution. I have an alternative hypothesis though:

1. If you want "proof" of God, then you must first give absolute blind faith, you must not ask for proof then you have to look for the signs (number repetition, natural anomalies, strange coincidences, etc...)
-This is not something I can prove to you and its the only way to see it.
-First you tell your church to keep their propaganda to themselves,
-then you need to read the red letters in a non king James version of the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus himself.
-Science will never find this proof because their conditioning will not allow them to follow this formula.

2. If the Bible (and other sacred texts) were put together by men with something to gain, then they will omit any threats to their continuous prosperity.
-how is it ten paragraphs are followed by one sentence then more paragraphs?

3. If God is the beginning and the end, his/her concept of time is NOT based on a 24 hour day.
-this is man's silly way of misunderstanding a vision.

I know this sounds way off base but here me out. This video is basically saying our food (peanut butter) proves evolution is fake thus God must be real. This obviously proves nothing. The Bible obviously contradicts science because the original visions were tampered with my simple minded monarchs. Obviously, obviously, obviously... obvious crap aside lets move on.

So how do we deal with a King's ambition to brainwash humanity? Well science of course, but back to the Bible. Up till fairly recently, historically speaking of course, even tyrants have been extremely superstitious. Jesus obviously scared the crap out of the religious leaders of his time, so at the very least, changing his spoken words would bring down the wrath of a blasphemous spirit that can raise the dead. This is why I believe the only parts of the scripts not tainted are the red letters, the teachings of Jesus. Still with me, I know I still seem off topic here.

So, after reading his word, the Bible becomes clearer if you can understand it properly. Matthew is a good start. There is not enough space to give all the text but 5:27+ & 6:1-13 give an idea of what I mean about his word and 13:3-9 is a parable (metaphor) explaining exactly what I mean by understanding it properly. 13:18-22 explains the parable and another parable follows it. No I am not a bible buff, I actually had to dust off my bible to find that and ironically all those numbers have been circling me for months now. I figured I was due to win the lottery but no luck there.

Now here comes the point. Science does not contradict the Bible fundamentally (see my hypotheses on top.) Check out genesis, the beginning. Seven days is stupid. Seven visions however... you see, I have a gift of perception so let me walk you through the process. First, remember we are talking about someone that lived a really long time ago, do some research if you need to. Once you have their perception, imagine seeing a formless rock in complete darkness, you have to see it. Now read and tell me a man from his era could possibility know all this without divine intervention... assuming you know the theories of how the earth formed and evolved yourself. By the way, the part where God "separated the dark from the light" is describing how an antiquitous man translates the moon vision.

Keep my hypotheses in mind when reading. The bible is tainted; what didn't make sense to them they changed. Evolution is supported by the original scriptures. Both evolution and divine creation co-exist.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


"Whether anyone could comprehend it or not is irrelevant. "God did it" is an effortless and meaningless excuse for an explanation. That's why scientists don't even take religion in to account, they're not biased, it's just not worth considering."

You seem to miss the point. IF God did as in Genesis - let's just say, for argument's sake that He did - then it is certainly worth considering. IF God did it, then it's a bit arrogant to assume that would could comprehend HOW He did it! My goodness, can't you see this?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


"Well actually the person I was talking to didn't understand it, and apparently you don't either. Tiny mutations add up to make larger changes, it's REALLY simple, yet some how too complicated for you. Funny how you're all for criticizing something you don't understand but won't provide anything of value for your side."

For starters, you condescending pustule, don't talk down to me. The FACT is that small changes leading to bigger ones - i.e. one species to another HAVE NOT been proven or shown to have happened ANYWHERE. Just because you say so does not make it so. And why should I provide anything of value. You are the genii that are saying evolution is true, NOT US! The onus of proof rests on you.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ted4d
 


If you're talking millions of years, YES! Carbon dating is useless.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by SubAce
infinity,

I don't have much time to answer this question directly. But since you asked sincerely, I thought I'd share these with you:

The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking

and:

Was Life Created?

These are meant for sincere people looking for truth, so I thought you would find them useful in starting to answer your questions.


Sincere people? Yeah aslong as your a Christian right?

Two documents presenting themselves as scientific, but then attempt to shape and squeeze that science into a bronze age story book.

This is dishonesty of the highest order, and it only feeds the delusions of those already deluded. And that's exactly what you have attempted to do.

Sincere.....


Not only that, but they either don't know about or are intentionally misstating scientifiic principles to do so . . . I think I know which one it is. Even when they describe something right, like basic DNA division, they keep saying stuff like "machines" instead of enzymes that are chemical catalysts. Then they'll say "aren't machines designed?", "how can a machine just come into existance w/o someone to build it?" Nothing tangible to argue against the methods or show evidence a designer . . . just a plea to emotion 'ask yourself, what does the bible say?" . . . Rubbish that grade-schoolers with a strong science education can see though without any prompting.

I like this one . . . I let my 10 year old son, who wants to be a paleontologist read the section on the fossil record. I asked him to read the whole document, but he said "I don't have time" . . . ? Anyway, I left him alone with it, didn't tell him anything about it . . . and when he was done, this was the first thing he brought up.


What, though, of the fossils that are used to
show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles
into mammals? Do they provide solid proof
of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection,
several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is
sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather
than being similar in size, some creatures in the
series are huge, while others are small.


He said . . . if that makes the fossil record wrong than what about my family tree. I said, "what do you mean buddy?" And he said if size and height have to stay the same why are you shorter than grandpa? I explained that they were talking about different species, transitional species. He asked if they knew about different environmental conditions, oxygen, levels, food sources . . . because they don't mention that. I laughed and said, because that doesn't support they're argument. And he said "well, then they lose the argument". I laughed some more.

. . . Maybe if those that don't believe in evolution would stick to their book, instead of trying to change everyone else's, they wouldn't lose arguments with 10 year old boys.?
edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by canDarian
I don't believe in spontaneous life from a dirt bowl of warm waters containing proteins then being hit by lightning and magically we get ATS and the Government and everything else.


If you question science magic you can get labeled a christian creationist who thinks the earth is 6 thousand years old.


"Science magic"??? What?





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join