How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

All good points Saturn.
I still try to read here and there on the latest finds regarding evolution. Like I said, I won't discount it, because I spent too much of my life locked in unbendable religious dogma. I won't do that again. I learned my lesson. I prefer to stay as objective as possible, and learn from my past mistakes. Not repeat them.

edit on 1/29/2013 by Klassified because: missed a word


Right, and that's exactly how to do it. Understanding where science currently is, but the core principle of someone skeptical (proper skeptic, not cynic jerk that people seem to associate with) is being able to understand and incorporate new things that change, or even dismiss previous understandings...all of science is simply what we have uncovered to date that is so far holding steady.

There are people whom use science as some sort of alter-religion..those people are just as annoying as your typical fundy whom demands the bible is totally real and everything else is false, stupid, lies, etc...the big thing is always question..be aware of what the collected knowledge is as best possible, and then keep questioning, either to add to or dismiss some of that pile in order to find a better understanding of truth.

There may be deities...but for now, I think we need to, as a species, focus on what we are stepping on in detail to better harnass it. Religion will not be curing cancer or creating holographic displays anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint
 





Evolution is evolution and it HAS and CAN be observed.


Pics or it didn't happen.


Originally posted by BrokenCircles



That proves nothing at all. Wait about a million years before opening that jar of peanut butter, and you may possibly get different results.



In a million years there would be no jar no peanut butter do to a hostile environment.
edit on 29-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Try doing the tiniest bit of research.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by SpearMint
This actually makes me sad. This is the 21st century, how are people like this still around?


This actually makes me laugh. That you think this is from the 21st century. And, how are they wrong? Peanut butter contains ammo acids...the building blocks of life. So, if we were to shoot this crap into space and send it to another planet...life should occur, but this same experiment can be studied on this planet. Did it happen...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. So, goes to show that a meteor or asteroid containing ammo acids "crash landing" on this planet did not create life. If that were so, why haven't the thousand other meteorites done the same or asteroids on other planets for that matter? You don't have the answer, so don't try.


How long has that peanut butter been in existence, months maybe? Just because you don't understand the topic, and you clearly don't, doesn't mean it isn't true. This is the worst argument against evolution I've ever seen, and that's saying something because they are all appalling.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
.Please discuss the topic.


We're having a lot of name-calling and flame-baiting in the past few pages of messages. Please stay on topic.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Out of fairness, evolution hasn't been successful in explaining the origin of life or the differentiation of species, so something else is going on at the same time, some sort of formative causation according to ideal forms.

So I think it's BOTH evolution AND creation by intelligent design.


It's not up to evolution to explain the origin of life, evolution can only happen after that has taken place. It can explain different species just fine.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 
Was this peanut butter pasteurized?
Did it contain Hydrogenated Oils?
I know if I take milk and let it sit for a while, it evolves into something else.
Is peanut butter more naturally inert than other things is this why it was used?

Did they try it with Adams PB? www.adamspeanutbutter.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


Really? Try college sometime if you are going to speak of the "Scientific" community. I mean, you aren't making much sense.

Your most basic Biology class will refute what you just said. Crazy.
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


I'm currently a college student. My major is anthropology with a minor in biology.

You don't need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Attack my arguments, not me.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:55 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.

If you believe in the theory of evolution that's fine, that's your choice. But don't go around presenting it as fact.


Are you another person that does not understand how small things can add up to a big thing? We have only observed small changes because big changes build up over an extremely long time, it can not be observed first hand. I don't know how you people can not understand that eventually this "micro" evolution adds up to be "macro" evolution. A small change happens, then a small change happens, then a small change happens, then a small change happens, then a small change happens, eventually these changes will make the life form totally different from when it started. This has happened over billions of years, not the few months or weeks that the peanut butter has been on the shelf. It's REALLY simple, and differentiating micro and macro evolution is stupid, only creationists do that.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Out of fairness, evolution hasn't been successful in explaining the origin of life or the differentiation of species, so something else is going on at the same time, some sort of formative causation according to ideal forms.

So I think it's BOTH evolution AND creation by intelligent design.


It's not up to evolution to explain the origin of life, evolution can only happen after that has taken place. It can explain different species just fine.


Sort of.

There are 2 points in earths history that still remains remarkable (however remarkable does not auto-insert deitys..it just means keep digging)

First off, the obvious spark of self replication..there are a few fairly decent hypothesis's out on this..but still being debated overall.

Second is the Cambrian Explosion...about 580m years ago things went from basically single celled organisms to in very short time all the variety we have today..short in cosmic terms mind you..80m years is extensive, but considering there was about 3.5b years previously where things just sort of sludged around replicating..it is short by comparison.

This was also the thing that Darwin himself sort of shrugged his shoulders and said he simply doesn't know as it didn't really fit the chart...Basically you had amoeba..amoeba..amoeba...oakwood tree...
Of course that is an absurdly inaccurate description, but it gets the general point across...so there is grounds to keep an open mind in the matter all together, but open in order to learn more about findings, and keep requesting more study done...not to suddenly toss in god, aliens, or anything else into the odd points.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SaturnFX because: speeling mastake



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by SpearMint
 
Was this peanut butter pasteurized?
Did it contain Hydrogenated Oils?
I know if I take milk and let it sit for a while, it evolves into something else.
Is peanut butter more naturally inert than other things is this why it was used?

Did they try it with Adams PB? www.adamspeanutbutter.com...




Milk doesn't evolve in to anything, by saying that I'm not sure what side you're on. Nothing you can buy at the supermarket is going to be evolving new life when you open it so let's move on from that.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

I wish more people thought along the lines of what you just described. This is what I was getting at in the thread in my signature. It's what I have aspired to since I walked away from religion. Well said!



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 
Actually, I am am aware at that and my bad attempt at humor....My apologies for that.

I do think the PB argument is unfair because from what my science has told me the earth has an atmosphere which consists of some elements that are probably crucial to our life here and there are elements in the ground and so forth. I can see some strange mix of amino's or elements coming together and creating something out of nothing.
The food industry has spent millions of dollars and many years perfectign the art of getting food to be stabilized and bacteria free so it would not surprise me that a jar full of peanut butter pretty much stays a jar of peanut butter for the duration of its recommended shelf life and most-likely beyond given the margin of safety needd to satisfy the USDA etc...

Which side am I on? Well, I believe that evolution is most likely, possibly influenced by outside forces, who knows, maybe even accellerated by a God or two who found some useful dirt that contained just the right amount of crtical elements to induce change. Anything is possible, now to find out whether God(s) influenced us after we evolved or if they influenced the evolution.
edit on 29-1-2013 by evc1shop because: typing mistake
edit on 29-1-2013 by evc1shop because: word fix



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I'll be damned. The proof was at wall mart all the time.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by SpearMint
This actually makes me sad. This is the 21st century, how are people like this still around?


This actually makes me laugh. That you think this is from the 21st century. And, how are they wrong? Peanut butter contains ammo acids...the building blocks of life. So, if we were to shoot this crap into space and send it to another planet...life should occur, but this same experiment can be studied on this planet. Did it happen...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. So, goes to show that a meteor or asteroid containing ammo acids "crash landing" on this planet did not create life. If that were so, why haven't the thousand other meteorites done the same or asteroids on other planets for that matter? You don't have the answer, so don't try.

How do you know what occurred whether ammino acid or God? You were not there nobody was in either case. So neither situation can be stated with a NOOOOOOOOOOO or a YEEEEEEESSSSSS. What we can do is assess all we currently know and theorise about what has happened. Now theories evolve (sic) as understanding increases. So this means that the current theories of the origins of life might be wrong! It does not mean that they are wrong because it can't answer everything yet, theories evolve. This is called scientific process. Right now there are a number of theories about the "spark" of life all of which are being pursued. Some are showing more promise than others and some are significantly reducing the odds of life such that it is starting to look like life can easily evolve with the right conditions.

Just because science cannot yet put a stake in the ground with a sign saying "life solved 100% certain" does not mean we should throw our hands in the air and start praying to some mythical deity for a solution. That is for ancient peoples who were ignorant of the ways of the world. Modern man does not have to resort to such ridiculous behaviour and some only do so out of fear and ignorance. (thats fear of death by the way).

The one thing I have observed from all forms of life and the conditions it lives in from our very very very very exceptionally exceedingly small sample size ...called earth, is that it thrives in a very wide range of conditions. You have to really work hard to make things inhospitable for life ! This suggests to me the universe is probably teeming with evolved life and not a God in site. NB numbers work against you yet again on this front. You only need to have life in 1 in a million solar systems and the universe would have trillions and trillions of planets with life.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Since this is turning out to be a competition between who believes in evolution and who believes in creationism/religion. Lets go all the way back to the very beginning of finite time.

Within religion time started when God said: let there be light.
Within science, time started with a Big Bang.

There is not really any physical difference between these two beginnings. Its just that one involves a God. The other does not mention a God or a creator.

Religion explains who caused the light.
Science explains how the Big Bang might have have happened.

Science can't see God in all this, but science can see how God did it. How God caused the light / Big Bang to take place.
Its like we can use science to explain Gods work. I know this wont sett very well with some people. But i like to use science in this way. Because evolution is a fact as far as our gathered knowledge tells us. And it is also written verse by verse in genesis chapter 1. Some people are to ignorant to accept it. These people are a bit slower to evolve than others. Or just plain ignorant.

In genesis chapter 1, verse 3. God said: Let there be light. We all should know by now that a light must have a source. Some kind of compressed mass must cause the light. "It is not God that shines"

Within science this source is called; the singularity. The singularity is the mass that cause the light.

If this singularity have expanded and formed our universe. We have to agree that the singularity have evolved into something that have made it possible for life to evolve. All the ingredients for life were present within the singularity at the moment the singularity was formed. This must mean that all life on earth comes from earth. That is also mentioned in Genesis chapter 1.
As the singularity expands, the expansion gives room for new things to evolve.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Since this is turing out to be a competition between who believes in evolution and who believes in creationism/religion. Lets go all the way back to the very beginning of finite time.

Within religion time started when God said: let there be light.
Within science, time started with a Big Bang.

There is not really any physical difference between these two beginnings. Its just that one involves a God. The other does not mention a God or a creator.

Religion explains who caused the light.
Science explains how the Big Bang might have have happened.

Science can't see God in all this, but science can see how God did it. How God caused the light / Big Bang to take place.
Its like we can use science to explain Gods work. I know this wont sett very well with some people. But i like to use science in this way. Because evolution is a fact as far as our gathered knowledge tells us. And it is also written verse by verse in genesis chapter 1. Some people are to ignorant to accept it. These people are a bit slower to evolve than others. Or just plain ignorant.

In genesis chapter 1, verse 3. God said: Let there be light. We all should know by now that a light must have a source. Some kind of compressed mass must cause the light. "It is not God that shines"

Within science this source is called; the singularity. The singularity is the mass that cause the light.

If this singularity have expanded and formed our universe. We have to agree that the singularity have evolved into something that have made it possible for life to evolve. All the ingredients for life were present within the singularity at the moment the singularity was formed. This must mean that all life on earth comes from earth. That is also mentioned in Genesis chapter 1.



The singularity isn't the source of the light, the singularity was the source of all the matter in the universe after the big bang. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form and around 9 billion years for our sun to form, the source of our light.

I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
.Please discuss the topic.


We're having a lot of name-calling and flame-baiting in the past few pages of messages. Please stay on topic.


Yeah play fair ppl like Byrd says.

I like this topic and enjoy reading the debate points.
And I like the open ended possibilities proposed and examined.

Keep this thread rolling, Ill be following the discussion.
Nothing to add other than I see a few interesting points bubbling up out of the void.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 





The singularity isn't the source of the light, the singularity was the source of all the matter in the universe after the big bang. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form and around 9 billion years for our sun to form, the source of our light.

I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation.




If the singularity is the source of all matter after the Big Bang. It must have been the source that caused the light as it expanded with a enormous force.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint
 





The singularity isn't the source of the light, the singularity was the source of all the matter in the universe after the big bang. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form and around 9 billion years for our sun to form, the source of our light.

I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation.




If the singularity is the source of all matter after the Big Bang. It must have been the source that caused the light as it expanded with a enormous force.


It's not the direct source of light here on Earth though, but it's a result of the big bang like everything is. God supposedly created light after the other stuff, so the big bang must have already happened and Earth, along with life had already formed. Our sun, which is crucial for life on Earth, formed before Earth did.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join