Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? Your gonna call me out on the difference between hypothesis and theory?? Ha. Look, I'm no genius and I don't claim to be. I am extremely interested in this topic though, so I do try to stay as up-to-date as I can. Let's face it, they're all just hypothesis. No one knows for sure. As I said I am but a simple layman... Laywoman.
However, there is a step into abstract thought that we apparently made. That is fact. We know that. Many scientist believe we made such a jump and indeed believe that our DNA should not have transformed/mutated as rapidly as it did. These concepts and ideas are prevalent and there are lots of studies, its not just lil old me. The info is out there.
And the most compelling arguement for me is not the genetics aspect anyways, its the various witness testimony. If I'm a juror and several witnesses make the same claim, I'm inclined to believe there's something to it.
So when several prolific ancient civilizations worship cosmology, know as much (if not more ) as we do presently about cosmology and metaphysics, and say that beings from there created us, well I must take notice.
Your wikipedia link was interesting, so thank you.
I'm open to the truth, whatever that may be and everyone will ofcorse have their own opinions about what that is, ha-ha, but I'm certainly not alone at all in my beliefs. There's alot of people on the ancient alien bandwagon and that's because, as of yet, it is a completely plausible... Perhaps probable, theory, hypothesis, whatever you wish to call it.
I don't know if your into this stuff, but if you or anyone else wishes to check these out I found them quite interesting and just watched these couple in the last few days.
The first one is from before 2012, but still really interesting. It doesn't say "ancient aliens" but I believe the concepts support the theory... It is long. Search YouTube for- ancient Egypt 2015: the alternate story of...
And
Ancient aliens SO3E16 aliens and the creation of man.
I'm sorry I have not mastered posting links yet!
but it should be an easy search on YouTube if anyone's interested.
Loving the convo.
Thank you
Sara


P.s. I'm even willing to concede that the history channel is a lil full of #. Just think the evidence speaks for itself.

a reply to: wonderworld

For the Neo-Darwinist:

Abstract:

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything
but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This
potential problem—the sampling problem—was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on
guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful
reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that
the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the
level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches
of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches
exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively
simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the
necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and
with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking
well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

bio-complexity.org...

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? Your gonna call me out on the difference between hypothesis and theory?? Ha. Look, I'm no genius and I don't claim to be. I am extremely interested in this topic though, so I do try to stay as up-to-date as I can. Let's face it, they're all just hypothesis. No one knows for sure. As I said I am but a simple layman... Laywoman.

Yes, I am going to call you out on that, because no, evolution is MORE than a hypothesis. It is a theory. You know if you are going to admit that you are a laywoman or whatever, it's best not to argue with someone that MAY know a bit more about science than you on this... There are VERY precise definitions of both hypothesis and theory within science. If your idea doesn't meet those qualification then you cannot call it a hypothesis or a theory. The AA "theory" is really just a hypothesis. It isn't confirmable, nor testable.

What is a Scientific Theory?

However, there is a step into abstract thought that we apparently made. That is fact. We know that. Many scientist believe we made such a jump and indeed believe that our DNA should not have transformed/mutated as rapidly as it did. These concepts and ideas are prevalent and there are lots of studies, its not just lil old me. The info is out there.

Many scientist DON'T believe this actually. A bunch of kooks on the History Channel make it seem like that is the case, but those people aren't really scientists either. Do you know that the way the History Channel presents this argument by asking questions then assuming the answers right after asking them? That isn't scientific.

And the most compelling arguement for me is not the genetics aspect anyways, its the various witness testimony. If I'm a juror and several witnesses make the same claim, I'm inclined to believe there's something to it.
So when several prolific ancient civilizations worship cosmology, know as much (if not more ) as we do presently about cosmology and metaphysics, and say that beings from there created us, well I must take notice.
Your wikipedia link was interesting, so thank you.

Witness testimony is subjective evidence. Witness testimony, while being admissible in court, is NOT admissible in science. It is HIGHLY unreliable. By saying you trust witness evidence more than objective evidence (what the field of genetics is) just tells me that you need to go restudy how science is conducted. Here is a link to get you started.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon objective evidence. Subjective evidence is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without objective evidence. Subjective evidence is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else’s senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed. The team is totally dependent upon the reliability of the subject, in the absence of any object of perception in the room.

Also, since when have the ancients known more about the universe and the cosmos than we do? Are you trying to say the ancient Mayans knew what black holes were or gamma ray bursts? Heck they didn't even know about the outer planets in the solar system.

Here is some reading on this subject that you need to consider about "witness" testimony.
Is Your Brain Lying to You?
Your brain lies to you

I'm open to the truth, whatever that may be and everyone will ofcorse have their own opinions about what that is, ha-ha, but I'm certainly not alone at all in my beliefs. There's alot of people on the ancient alien bandwagon and that's because, as of yet, it is a completely plausible... Perhaps probable, theory, hypothesis, whatever you wish to call it.

It sounds like you are only open to what you've already decided is true and aren't open to anything else. You admit you are a layperson, yet are trying to argue that you know more than scientists on the matter... If you are truly open to the truth, shouldn't you try to just stop talking and try to get an expert's opinion first?

One more thing, you just made a bandwagon appeal fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something is true, doesn't make it so. Nor does that fact make it reliable evidence. NOR does that fact mean that we should even consider that opinion.

I don't know if your into this stuff, but if you or anyone else wishes to check these out I found them quite interesting and just watched these couple in the last few days.
The first one is from before 2012, but still really interesting. It doesn't say "ancient aliens" but I believe the concepts support the theory... It is long. Search YouTube for- ancient Egypt 2015: the alternate story of...
And
Ancient aliens SO3E16 aliens and the creation of man.
I'm sorry I have not mastered posting links yet!

but it should be an easy search on YouTube if anyone's interested.
Loving the convo.
Thank you
Sara

Youtube is a terrible source of information. Any yahoo can make a video and upload it to Youtube. It's probably the absolute WORST form of evidence you can provide. Also, instead of asking me to search for your youtube videos for you, there IS a way to link them in your posts here. Just click on the youtube button above the text window then enter the part of the url from the youtube video AFTER the equal sign and you are good to go.

P.s. I'm even willing to concede that the history channel is a lil full of #. Just think the evidence speaks for itself.

Are you aware that the Ancient Alien theorists are all marred by years and years of fraud and lies?
The Idiocy, Fabrications and Lies of Ancient Aliens

Read that and then get back to me about being open to evidence.

a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

Also, in case you think I'm not open minded about this subject or anything. The Ancient Aliens show was what led me to ATS in the first place. I sought this website out because I liked the idea it was presenting, but even back then I noticed that the AA show never presented the alternative viewpoint and it felt a bit biased to me. So I came here to see how the idea stood up to scrutiny. Unfortunately for it, it DOESN'T stand up to scrutiny. It fails the most critical part of the scientific method. Peer review. Thus I changed my mind on it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, you seem like you have it all figured out. Good for you! Not interested in negative kind of smug insults to my intelligence though, so I'm just gonna let you have it.
I will say, you don't seem to know a whole lot more than I do, you just seem arrogant and cock sure. I could go through the trouble of looking up studies and yada, yada, but I think I've gone as far as my serenity allows me to go with someone who thinks they know it all.
I've seen MANY MANY YouTube links on here and if I bothered could probably find one you posted, but that's neither here nor there. So anyways sir, you have a fine day. I've seen you before and will probably see you again so ... Yah know... If you could refrain yourself from splitting hairs like theory and hypothesis... I mean really? I didn't graduate suda cum laude, but I'm not an idiot and don't appreciate being referred to as one.
Thank you
Sara

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, you seem like you have it all figured out. Good for you! Not interested in negative kind of smug insults to my intelligence though, so I'm just gonna let you have it.
I will say, you don't seem to know a whole lot more than I do, you just seem arrogant and cock sure. I could go through the trouble of looking up studies and yada, yada, but I think I've gone as far as my serenity allows me to go with someone who thinks they know it all.

Wow... What an immature way to dismiss all those links I painstakingly sought out to help you see where I'm coming from... I guess I was right for assuming you weren't truly open minded. As soon as you are confronted with a bunch of information that challenges your worldview, you call me arrogant and refuse to address any of it.

I've seen MANY MANY YouTube links on here and if I bothered could probably find one you posted, but that's neither here nor there. So anyways sir, you have a fine day. I've seen you before and will probably see you again so ... Yah know... If you could refrain yourself from splitting hairs like theory and hypothesis... I mean really? I didn't graduate suda cum laude, but I'm not an idiot and don't appreciate being referred to as one.
Thank you
Sara

Well you'd be looking a VERY long time because the only Youtube videos I post are either jokes or in the BelowTopSecret forums.

Why should I refrain myself from splitting hairs over hypothesis and theory? Because you refuse to understand the differences between the two words? I don't care what you graduated as, but if you are going to enter a discussion, it helps to be properly educated on it. If you can't be bothered to learn the distinction between BASIC scientfic definitions like theory or hypothesis, why should we bother to attempt to educate you on more complicated stuff?

I learned the proper definitions of theory and hypothesis back in middle school. I didn't have to graduate the top of my class in college to figure them out.

Go read what I presented and show me that you are actually serious about being open minded. That you care about updating your incorrect thinking and that you aren't so arrogant to get offended by someone telling you that you are wrong.

I was TRYING to assume you were willing to learn here since I don't usually bother to post all those links I did in my posts when debating evolution anymore, because I felt you were different. I guess I was wrong. You are just like any other Creationist trying to invent rationalizations to avoid evidence that conflicts with your narrative. Ugh. I can't believe I got my hopes up for a real evolution debate. I should have just continued to assume that no such thing would ever occur on ATS...

One last question for you. If you think that aliens created humans, where did the aliens come from? How did THEY evolve? You seem to think that intelligence cannot bridge evolutionary gaps, so you need to explain what made aliens so smart. If you say evolution, then you need to explain why humans couldn't have evolved their intelligence as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not going to read that, because I don't want to feel like crap about some dude I don't know calling me a dunce.
But I did feel incomplete not backing myself up on what I believe, so after my blood pressure dropped, I went and did some homework.
First- lots of scientific studies rely on participants testimony... Or witnesses describing the effects of the study. So your wrong about witness testimony having no credibility.
Second- I was having a hell of a time finding any actual scientific data... So touche on that, but I did find some... And then I found the motherload of links right here on ATS.

AND SINCE YOUR NO SLOUCH, I WILL TRY AGAIN TO POST A LINK.
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread 67659

And I found a couple others although I believe our forum here covered the topic thoroughly.

www.quora.com...

www.dailymail.Co.UK/sciencetech/article-2507377/humans- not- come- Earth-sunburn-bad-backs-pain-labour-prove

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientist-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite.

So, as I said I don't really know how to post links, but I'm trying it here. I guess if it doesn't work I must be some kind of idiot, but then any idiot could read what I wrote and search very easily, so...
There you have it.
Thank you
Sara

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The tone of your writing comes off as though you are superior. Darwinian mechanisms have been shown again and again to be unable to cause body morphogenesis. Yet you stand here and defend an already defeated theory.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Also there's something called "the disclosure project" that has alot of credible people behind it and you may want to check that out.
Thanks
Sara

a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

I think I'd probably disagree with your AA idea as well, though I have my own interpretation of that evidence. Trey smith has a good youtube video on elongated skulls found all over the world. Personally think they were nephilim not our creators.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Oh, for sure, I will watch that before I crash tonight... But let me just ask this, are we getting into angels and demons and that kind of area with this? Just curious about the term "nephilim" .
I have heard about these skulls before though and am for sure going to check this out.

i got to give a shout out to all the kind minded wise people on team science who are actually trying to help these OBVIOUS TROLLS.

threads like this are a dime a dozen and they basically work like this...

ITS A CONSPIRACY THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE LIKE ME

murg tried to stay in the closet about it because it sounds REAALLLYYY SILLLLYYYY when you say it out loud...
but the conspiracy is that:

SATAN is using science to distract you from the ONE TRUE FAITH

(which is the OPs of course)
(all the OTHER creationists are JUST AS WRONG as the science guys)

any attempt to use fact or logic will merely PROVE THAT YOU'RE IN ON THE ANTI-GOD-CON, or that you have been deceived by its salesmen


so is ALL science bad? or just BIOLOGY?
do i have to toss my air-conditioner and my toothpaste? (they didn't have those back when the Good Book got written...

so extra points to the kind minded educators in this thread, you guys even kept your cool for the most part. which im sure was a challenge with the fingers in the ears and the LALALALA I-CANT-HEAR-YOU.


to the OP and those like minded. you are already an athiest... just think of all the gods you DONT believe in LOL

i usually flip the evolution argument like this.

I DONT NEED YOUR METEOROLOGY... because my religion says that THOR MAKES RAIN.

no matter what you say, my faith in Thor will not waver...

those who watch the Weather Channel have been deceived by LOKI! (mwuhahahahah)

a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

Nephilim comes from the bible.

"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown,"

They are angel-human hybrids.

omigod i just saw some youtuber calling it Evil-Lucion because it is....
A: Bad
B: Luciferian.

he insinuates that Richard Dawkins pronounces it this way because he is IN ON IT (and not british)
(in USA eh-volution... in UK ee-volution) its just accent

i just couldnt make that up, id post a link but that vid is already being used as evidence here in this forum...

why do i come and read this stuff.
oh yeah its cause this GRADESCHOOL DRIVEL keeps clogging up WHAT USED TO BE A GREAT PLACE TO READ!

edit to include below
the RETCON now states that Darwin was an Illuminati NWO Satanist.
this type of stuff is to be used to PROSELYTIZE us tin foil hat people
since we already know about the NWO,
but we DIDNT KNOW IT IS RUN FROM A CENTRAL OFFICE IN PROTESTANT HELL.

so if these church guys are nice enough to lay some heavy truth on us, we should just acknowledge their superior position, after all a bunch of science is only gonna get your hands dirty, and SATAN is behind science anyhow, and thats a waste of time you could have SPENT IN CHURCH.

hey OP, next time you wanna type something like this, JUST GO TO CHURCH INSTEAD. why keep tossing yer pearls at swine?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well I'm not against the idea. I'll check it out. But even though I consider myself a Christian, I don't know??? There's so much going on in this universe... God created it all ofcorse, but angels or extraterrestrials? That's my problem with it, but I promise to give it an honest look. I'll get back to you on that.

Uwascallywabbit: hehe

Hi randyvs. In relation to the many 'coincidences' which you have mentioned. I encountered this argument in another creationist/designer discussion. Multiverse theory was brought in at some point. This is how it was addressed

The multiverse theory has no empirical evidence whatsoever and is heavily criticised. Many prominent scientists have stated it is non-scientific (cannot be tested), based on philosophy, akin to theological explanations, ‘disguised’ in scientific language etc. Apparently the idea of multiverses existed in religious scriptures and science before now but it wasn’t discussed then but is discussed now and being made popular despite no change in evidence.

The reason why we hear about it is because when it was shown that the universe is fine-tuned, this was crying out for an explanation because it gave the impression that the universe is indeed designed. In the words of Dawkins it seems to be a 'put up job'. In a desperate attempt to explain this reality, atheists dug up this old multiverse theory and tried to suggest the fine-tuned universe exists because there are many billions upon billions of endless universes of which our one got the fine-tuned constants by chance.

There is no problem if a multiverse exists and there’s evidence to support it. There is a problem with atheist scientists and subsequently their deceived followers promoting philosophical and baseless beliefs about multiverse as science in order to get out of believing in a God.

I'll have a go. On the top are representations of life and environment. It's the same graph just mirrored. I plotted the curves using Foo Plot, downloaded and set the background to transparent. The patterns are what happens with no extra intervention.

On the bottom, first, is life in harmony with environment. The centre loops are in sync and the straighter lines meet at 12 o'clock. Note that there are minimal distortions and they are vertical. Nothing is perfect. The life will always face some hardship so it remembers to stay alive.

In the middle environment has changed. I just rotated the environment. The loops in the centre are no longer aligned, but it doesn't matter. The distortions are still the same as in the first, but now horizontal: different hardships but manageable.

The last one shows what happens if life attempts to 'evolve' bringing the loops back in line. The distortions go crazy. Hardship increases many times and the life succumbs.



Evolution, if it exists, is therefore more detrimental than beneficial. God would not build in a self-destruct program in His pride and joy, Creation.

I get a real kick out of the simple view of the world when it chooses GOD or science???

You see GOD by definition is the creator of all of the Universe and everything in it...

Science is the study of the laws and or rules which govern everything in the universe...

Seeing as GOD is the creator the laws and rules which govern could only therefore be his implementation...

He could only logically be seen as the master of all sciences...

So to try and use science as an argument to disprove his existence is utterly stupid...

When it comes to evolution from nothing, that is impossible with only the rules of science... Something is needed to create from and someone or something is needed to cause it...

Ask yourself how or why something that always was has any need of change or evolving?
For anything to have always existed would make it a perfect form, without need or indeed even the ability to further perfect itself...

The evidence before you which governs creation shows this to be quite the opposite...

a reply to: MoshiachIusDei

If you know anything about the bible you would know Man was once immortal and dwelt in the presence of the Lord...

If you know this much of the story you should also know that Man fell from Grace and was removed from his presence...

If you know more about God you know that sin can not dwell in his presence...

The Universe exists separate from the kingdom of God not one corner of the Universe is in the kingdom of Heaven...

I believe the Universe is the place created because of the fall when we were removed from his presence...

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not going to read that, because I don't want to feel like crap about some dude I don't know calling me a dunce.

I didn't call you a dunce, nor did I ever insinuate you were. Stop taking things on the internet so personally. I'm just trying to show you the error of your thinking. A non-dunce wouldn't take constructive criticism so personally and instead analyze their argument to see if the faults being pointed out are legit or not.

Though I'm not sure if I should even continue talking to you. When you tell me you aren't going to read my words, it just makes me think that the effort isn't worth it.

But I did feel incomplete not backing myself up on what I believe, so after my blood pressure dropped, I went and did some homework.
First- lots of scientific studies rely on participants testimony... Or witnesses describing the effects of the study. So your wrong about witness testimony having no credibility.

Which studies? "Lots" is a very vague term. How many is "lots"? Also, how does this apply to evolutionary theory? Are you suggesting that evolutionary theory is built on testimony?

By the way, interpreting raw data isn't witness testimony. You can disagree with the interpretation, but you need to point out from the data why that interpretation is wrong. That is part of the peer review process.

Second- I was having a hell of a time finding any actual scientific data... So touche on that, but I did find some... And then I found the motherload of links right here on ATS.

AND SINCE YOUR NO SLOUCH, I WILL TRY AGAIN TO POST A LINK.
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread 67659

I'm not sure what you are trying to show with this link. It is a link to some guy who thinks that ATS has an agenda against conservatives.

And I found a couple others although I believe our forum here covered the topic thoroughly.

www.quora.com...

Quora isn't a valid source of information. It's less reliable than wikipedia. It's just a place where people ask questions, any one can answer, and we all vote as to what the "best" answer is. Well "best" doesn't necessarily mean correct.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Ok, this is an article that is basically an ad for a book by one "Dr." Ellis Sliver. Who is "Dr." Ellis Sliver? Also I put "Dr." in quotes because I'm not sure he is a doctor or not. I cannot find any of his credentials online. This makes his information seem dubious. After all, why would someone need to lie about being a doctor to sell books?

www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientist-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite.

I'm not too crazy about fox news as a source, but I'll give you that this source is WAY more credible than your previous ones. Though this link is only pointing out that one guy at NASA is saying that there could be life on a meteorite. That's cool and all, but it's not exactly evidence that aliens came to Earth 6 - 10 thousand years ago and manipulated our genetic code to make us smarter.

So, as I said I don't really know how to post links, but I'm trying it here. I guess if it doesn't work I must be some kind of idiot, but then any idiot could read what I wrote and search very easily, so...
There you have it.
Thank you
Sara

You should just use the post link button above the text window. It's the button with a box and arrow coming out of the top right part of the box. If you use that, it'll properly format the link for you so that it shows up right. The reason your links keep messing up is because the forum sometimes messes up links if you don't use the url tags.

One more thing. Please stop taking things so personally. I'm trying to give you constructive criticism of your evidence and your evidence analysis here. You keep telling me that you aren't a dunce, well I want to believe you. That's why I'm trying to help you. You may not like it, but there is a specific and precise procedure that MUST be followed in order to conduct quality science. It requires that one know the precise definitions of hypothesis, theory, law, etc. It also has certain standards for evidence and evidence analysis. If you want to argue science, you must acknowledge all these things. If you don't then no one will take you seriously when you try to debate evolution or any other science topic.