Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 23
21
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by milkyway12
Evolution is nothing but a theory any how. Take it as a grain of salt. Some how, the T-Rex is now the chicken breast I eat for dinner from KFC.

People call creationist crazy, but at least I don't believe T-Rex transformed into a chicken.


What if the chicken gets really really angry and the genes mutate with radiation and it turns into a giant man eating bird we call a Raptor?
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.

Through fossils and the anatomy of late dinosaurs it's really obvious that they are where birds evolved from, they even had feathers and beaks. Evolution isn't "transforming", it's small mutations over a long period of time resulting in bigger changes. People that say these stupid things about evolution never understand it, but then religion discourages critical, independent thinking and scientific observation and exploration. It amazes me how they can laugh at observable and proven scientific theories when they believe a magical being created us and everything, and why? Because a book says so.


that is transforming- transforming over a long period of time

Believe it if you want, and whilst it has scientific underpinning, it still involves a leap of faith


... Wow.

Transform: Make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.

In other words, a change. Evolution is the process of changing. If you actually know a bit about the subject it isn't a leap of faith at all. Anything is a leap of faith if you don't know the facts.




posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
After reading a lot of these posts i wonder why no scientists ever log on to ATS for som facts and knowledge about their own work.

I bet if one did, he would be corrected prity fast from one of you.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The people trying to correct the scientists would be the creationists.

One of the funny stories I heard was about a biology professor from a respected university that went to a big creationist fest to see what the speakers were talking about. After one of the presentations the professor went up to the speaker to ask why he had presented material that was known not to be correct. One of the fans of the speaker turned to the professor and told him that if he should take a basic course in biology before asking such questions.

Yes, it would be the creationists trying to correct the scientists.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I wondered where creationists got their material from.

That explains it quite well. No wonder it sounds like all jokes, they use material from comedians.

It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.
-kardec



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





As pointed out already, your example is wrong. However, perhaps you were thinking of something more concrete, like tobacco companies swearing up and down that their product didn't cause cancer.

The problem with that example is that the Company actively suppressed any findings that their own employed scientists accidentally (because they were NOT paid to do experiments that would cause problems) came up with. Thus there was no 'real' science going on. No peer review. no publication, no duplication of results, nothing. It was product development, not science.

The Food and Drug Administration has been gutted, and has no authority to do anything anymore, they certainly do not do any science to test any food or drugs; there is just no way that they could have the capacity to do any testing like that. They are totally, absolutely, 100%, bound by the 'science' the companies report.

And yes, sometimes the tests mandated by the FDA, and carried out in good faith by the product developer are inadequate. It is fairly easy to show a drug is effective for a particular case, it is impossible to prove that it is not harmful in every case. You cannot prove a negative. It is also the case that there have been cases where companies have lied about the science on their products.
I don't fully agree. I think sometimes you can prove a negative. Like when we dropped a bomb on hiroshima, and later found that it caused cancer.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Link 1 claims a connection. Provides no evidence.
Link 2 claims a link and even gives an individual researcher. The risk is given as maybe. Lots of things are maybes.
Link 3. The basic for link 2
Link 4. Says the study referenced was flawed.
Link 5. A discussion of the flawed study from link 4
Link 6. More from the AAEM

and so forth and so on


The AAEM has been cited as an illegitimate organization by Quackwatch, for promoting the diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't fully agree. I think sometimes you can prove a negative. Like when we dropped a bomb on hiroshima, and later found that it caused cancer.

You clearly did not understand what the poster was stating.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Link 1 claims a connection. Provides no evidence.
Link 2 claims a link and even gives an individual researcher. The risk is given as maybe. Lots of things are maybes.
Link 3. The basic for link 2
Link 4. Says the study referenced was flawed.
Link 5. A discussion of the flawed study from link 4
Link 6. More from the AAEM

and so forth and so on
And why don't you look at evolution through the same eyes. I find the same things in evolution. Just a bunch of maybe's. No links that prove anything, but a lot that sure do question its legitimacy.

On number one, you can't watch cancer in action. Sometimes it takes years or a lifetime, so they have to go by the clues given. Or do you not believe in things taking crazy amounts of time, like evolution?
edit on 18-3-2013 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And why don't you look at evolution through the same eyes. I find the same things in evolution. Just a bunch of maybe's. No links that prove anything, but a lot that sure do question its legitimacy.

False. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence you posted was self contradictory and from those on the quack watch list.


On number one, you can't watch cancer in action. Sometimes it takes years or a lifetime, so they have to go by the clues given. Or do you not believe in things taking crazy amounts of time, like evolution?

No weaseling out. You were wrong on yet another subject.

Evolution applies to species. Cancer involves individuals.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





And why don't you look at evolution through the same eyes. I find the same things in evolution. Just a bunch of maybe's. No links that prove anything, but a lot that sure do question its legitimacy.


False. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence you posted was self contradictory and from those on the quack watch list.
Oh please, there is no evidence that a species CAN change into another species let along that of it happening.




On number one, you can't watch cancer in action. Sometimes it takes years or a lifetime, so they have to go by the clues given. Or do you not believe in things taking crazy amounts of time, like evolution?

No weaseling out. You were wrong on yet another subject.

Evolution applies to species. Cancer involves individuals.
You would be wrong again, check out this link.

There is abundant evidence that GM foods cause sickness and death



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Of course the question comes to mind, that if humans are modifying genes in food, that are in turn causing cancer, when don't we see some of these genes being automatically introduced through evolution. Simple, because evolution isn't real.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Oh please, there is no evidence that a species CAN change into another species let along that of it happening.

Evolution is a fact. Even you stated that one species can turn into another species.


You would be wrong again, check out this link.

So you abandoned all of those other quack links and have something new to show.

Oh goodie you have recycled more of the same junk from a new link. There are lots more junk places for you to choose from. If you find anything from a peer reviewed journal let us know.

You can repeat nonsense all you want. There are plenty of junk places such as you list that have bigfoot, aliens, chemtrails, creationism, and more all listed with their own brand of unsubstantiated rubbish.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Oh please, there is no evidence that a species CAN change into another species let along that of it happening.

Evolution is a fact. Even you stated that one species can turn into another species.
Species don't change into another species, if they did, everything we have come to know and understand about DNA would be useless.




You would be wrong again, check out this link.

So you abandoned all of those other quack links and have something new to show.

Oh goodie you have recycled more of the same junk from a new link. There are lots more junk places for you to choose from. If you find anything from a peer reviewed journal let us know.

You can repeat nonsense all you want. There are plenty of junk places such as you list that have bigfoot, aliens, chemtrails, creationism, and more all listed with their own brand of unsubstantiated rubbish.
There are scientists behind those findings, I doubt very seriously if all of those scientists are wrong.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do GMOs cause cancer? No. Are there lots of rumors and screaming and yelling from people that are willing to do that without any evidence. You bet.

Do genes have to hop from organism to organism to cause cancer? No.

Tobacco comes to mind. Black pepper might be carcinogenic. Sassafras, nutmeg, and cocoa contain carcinogenic compound. Lots of plants have chemicals that can cause cancer. Do they? It often is unclear if they do.

There seems to be an endless number of things that some posters are able to get wrong.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Species don't change into another species, if they did, everything we have come to know and understand about DNA would be useless.

Again you lie. What we know about DNA can even be used to determine the time at which species shared a common ancestor.


There are scientists behind those findings, I doubt very seriously if all of those scientists are wrong.


More unsubstantiated rubbish.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Do GMOs cause cancer? No. Are there lots of rumors and screaming and yelling from people that are willing to do that without any evidence. You bet.

So let me get this straight, you honestly believe that modifying a gene in a food to create a pestacide within that food couldn't cause cancer? What part of the pesticide do you believe to not be harmful?




Do genes have to hop from organism to organism to cause cancer? No.
This makes no sense, as genes don't just hop from organisim to organisim, unless you believe in evolution.




Tobacco comes to mind. Black pepper might be carcinogenic. Sassafras, nutmeg, and cocoa contain carcinogenic compound. Lots of plants have chemicals that can cause cancer. Do they? It often is unclear if they do.

There seems to be an endless number of things that some posters are able to get wrong.
The problem is that it could take to long to determine. The prelimenary stages of cancer have already been identified in these GMO's, and that is good enough. Also causing cancer in lab rats, and horrible deformities is proof within itself. How blind can you be?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Species don't change into another species, if they did, everything we have come to know and understand about DNA would be useless.

Again you lie. What we know about DNA can even be used to determine the time at which species shared a common ancestor.
However, with your religious belief of evolution, you have to also believe that DNA can just change because of many different things. As a result of that belief you have no way of knowing if the DNA that your looking at has changed since it's creation, possibly altering your preception of history.




There are scientists behind those findings, I doubt very seriously if all of those scientists are wrong.


More unsubstantiated rubbish.
Yes, its just as I expected, everyone else is wrong, and your correct.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


The people trying to correct the scientists would be the creationists.

One of the funny stories I heard was about a biology professor from a respected university that went to a big creationist fest to see what the speakers were talking about. After one of the presentations the professor went up to the speaker to ask why he had presented material that was known not to be correct. One of the fans of the speaker turned to the professor and told him that if he should take a basic course in biology before asking such questions.

Yes, it would be the creationists trying to correct the scientists.


Exactly. My brother used to post on here and actually teaches at a University yet some of the "less intelligent people" have said similar things. They should take their own advice!! Some of these people are a few fries short of a happy meal yet feel they have all the knowledge in the world. Very unsettling.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So let me get this straight, you honestly believe that modifying a gene in a food to create a pestacide within that food couldn't cause cancer? What part of the pesticide do you believe to not be harmful?

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.


This makes no sense, as genes don't just hop from organisim to organisim, unless you believe in evolution.

Genes from one organism can connect to another organism.

The original question was "Do genes have to hop from organism to organism to cause cancer?" The answer to that is no.


The problem is that it could take to long to determine. The prelimenary stages of cancer have already been identified in these GMO's, and that is good enough. Also causing cancer in lab rats, and horrible deformities is proof within itself. How blind can you be?

Your statements are arguments from personal ignorance.

1. You have yet to show that GMOs cause cancer.
2. Potato skins cause cancers in rats, but not in humans. How blind can you be?





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join