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.
Originally posted by boony
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.
Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.
I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.
Originally posted by Not Authorized
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Immune
What does that have to do with observed changes in allele frequency within a population over time aka evolution?
micro evolution ≠ macro evolution.
There's a difference between the two. Again, micro does not prove macro and any attempt to use it as 'proof' is a fallacious argument known as fallacy of division. You've been taught they are one in the same, that micro = macro = evolution.
We can argue all we want from genetic drift to irreducible complexity, but none of that addresses what he just stated. Biology is clear, that cells only come from other cells. You must address the elephant in the room. How can you get life, from lifelessness? Where did that first cell come from? Where is the documented evidence of such acts happening spontaneously?
It's special to note that even the OP already admitted defeat on this point, with his first post, by trying to steer away from the question where the first cell came from. NO ONE wants to address that, so all the other red herrings from evolutionists (such as micro-evolution) come out to play because they feel it's the only way to 'win' the argument and prove all those silly creationists wrong.
Either way it's the same game.
1.) God either created life.
2.) An updated 20th century version of Gaia worship, in which Gaia is the mother of all (the similarities are pretty striking) and thus "mother earth" has become your god, and you don't even realize it.
Both require faith on how it happened. I can state my belief that God spoke into existence life. You can state your belief that randomness somehow created the first cell in a primordial ooze. The rest is chicken fodder, because both are a system of beliefs, and neither can be unequivocally proven.
Even the current 'experiments' getting RNA to duplicate are in a controlled environment. Ironically it shows Intelligent Design as a valid model, as we are the ones designing and controlling it. But hey, it's all 'random' right? Oh wait, there is no such thing as 'true' randomness, as anyone that works with random number generators in a field such slot gaming knows that there can only be pseudo randomness.
In the past, God was insulted when we ascribed His creation to 'gods' made of wood, stone, or gold. We've found something even better to insult him with, and that is we didn't need him for creation.
I hope that your 20th century version of Gaia worship works out for you.edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by colin42
Originally posted by boony
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.
Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.
I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.
No not correct. Evolution is the line in the sand. Science has shown repeatable evidence and facts to back it. If you wish too show it to be wrong then you must challenge it or the evidence it consists of.
The reason why you say it is up to evolution to prove it is because you have no valid evidence to the contrary and the lack of it on this thread show that plainly.
Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.
Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.
I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.
I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.
I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.
As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong
One doesnt have to prove evolution is wrong.
Science has to prove it is correct, so far science has failed to prove evolution in anything living or non living, never mind uncomplicated becoming complicated in living cells.
Evolution is absurd.
Originally posted by flyingfish
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by syrinx high priest
Who brought the creature of divinity into fruition that you propose created everything?
gandalfedit on 24-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)
Good one! You made me laugh.
micro evolution ≠ macro evolution.
There's a difference between the two. Again, micro does not prove macro and any attempt to use it as 'proof' is a fallacious argument known as fallacy of division. You've been taught they are one in the same, that micro = macro = evolution.
We can argue all we want from genetic drift to irreducible complexity, but none of that addresses what he just stated. Biology is clear, that cells only come from other cells. You must address the elephant in the room. How can you get life, from lifelessness? Where did that first cell come from? Where is the documented evidence of such acts happening spontaneously?
It's special to note that even the OP already admitted defeat on this point, with his first post, by trying to steer away from the question where the first cell came from. NO ONE wants to address that, so all the other red herrings from evolutionists (such as micro-evolution) come out to play because they feel it's the only way to 'win' the argument and prove all those silly creationists wrong.
Either way it's the same game.
1.) God either created life.
2.) An updated 20th century version of Gaia worship, in which Gaia is the mother of all (the similarities are pretty striking) and thus "mother earth" has become your god, and you don't even realize it.
Both require faith on how it happened. I can state my belief that God spoke into existence life. You can state your belief that randomness somehow created the first cell in a primordial ooze. The rest is chicken fodder, because both are a system of beliefs, and neither can be unequivocally proven.
Even the current 'experiments' getting RNA to duplicate are in a controlled environment. Ironically it shows Intelligent Design as a valid model, as we are the ones designing and controlling it. But hey, it's all 'random' right? Oh wait, there is no such thing as 'true' randomness, as anyone that works with random number generators in a field such slot gaming knows that there can only be pseudo randomness.
In the past, God was insulted when we ascribed His creation to 'gods' made of wood, stone, or gold. We've found something even better to insult him with, and that is we didn't need him for creation.
I hope that your 20th century version of Gaia worship works out for you.
creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cu#e, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu. (from Leipzig, n.d.)
Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by ipsedixit
The problem with this thinking is that you can’t make a conscious effort to change your DNA. You can’t decide one cold night, after the ice age rolls in, that it would be nice to have a thick coat of fur and suddenly start growing one. The process is that when the ice age rolls in, those that have more body hair seem to survive better, so they live to pass on the hairy gene. Over time more and more people are born with this hairy gene, and eventually the humans of this era all start to develop more hair.
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by DaveNorris
The teaching of creationism does not belong in public schools because creationism has NO science to teach.