ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for Evolution - Open to All Members

a reply to: Isurrender73

To simply ignore Abiogenesis gives no credence to natural origins leading to evolution nor creation leading to evolution.

Sighs this is going off topic. It does not matter how life got started. That have been stated many times hence the point of the OP. Let me repeat - it does not matter how it got started.

a reply to: rockintitz

My bad.. I should not have brought up something so different from the OP's stated goal.

No problem.

Here's a beer

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Nice try and idea op.
Pity the deniers have already jumped in adding nothing. Oh and the obe addibg nothing and moaning about flags?.
Reaaly?.
Nice try again op.
SnF.

I will admit that the conversation I was having may have derailed the thread, I should not have replied. But my intention with my original reply was to present evidence from both sides and not to derail this thread.

If the mods disagree they can delete everything I have posted in this thread, my feelings will not be hurt.

a reply to: Isurrender73

No sich thing as a missing link.
If you knew about evolution you would understand this.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Nice try and idea op.
Pity the deniers have already jumped in adding nothing. Oh and the obe addibg nothing and moaning about flags?.
Reaaly?.
Nice try again op.
SnF.

I will admit that the conversation I was having may have derailed the thread, I should not have replied. But my intention with my original reply was to present evidence from both sides and not to derail this thread.

If the mods disagree they can delete everything I have posted in this thread, my feelings will not be hurt.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Nah they won't delete your post. We can debate in other thread if you want. I linked one of them in my post on the first page.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: rockintitz

My bad.. I should not have brought up something so different from the OP's stated goal.

No problem.

Here's a beer

I'll accept your beer.

I'll cheers to your obliviousness to sarcasm.

a reply to: rockintitz

I'll cheers to your obliviousness to sarcasm.

Aah got ya. I had to reread. I am pretty drunk right now.

Here's another beer

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: rockintitz

I'll cheers to your obliviousness to sarcasm.

Aah got ya. I had to reread. I am pretty drunk right now.

Here's another beer

Me and you need to start a drinking game.

a reply to: Isurrender73

So if we want to use science then we have an ultimatum that it has to be proven using the scientific method....

A standard I am sure you don't hold your own theory, in which I mean the layman's term, to.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Isurrender73

So if we want to use science then we have an ultimatum that it has to be proven using the scientific method....

A standard I am sure you don't hold your own theory, in which I mean the layman's term, to.

"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."

Source

On a level playing field of purely science, they are at a minimum equally acceptable. When the God hating atheists or the Bible thumping church goers enter the mix, bias ensues.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model.

You forgot to provide the source for that.

On a level playing field of purely science, they are at a minimum equally acceptable.

Are other creation theories acceptable to you?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TinfoilTP

There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model.

You forgot to provide the source for that.

On a level playing field of purely science, they are at a minimum equally acceptable.

Are other creation theories acceptable to you?

I provided the source for all of that.
The only creation theory is the one that agrees with the evidence. Nobody would create a theory that has evidence to disprove it immediately, that would be foolish.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I provided the source for all of that.

I am talking about this one:

There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I provided the source for all of that.

I am talking about this one:

There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model.

scroll down the page, it is a long page. It is highlighted in a dark bordered box further down the page.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

No not the box quote. I am talking about where the quote came from.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.

Please...

The most recent source in there is 1980 as well.
Is that really all you got?
And we are not trying to get into creation, evolution has nothing to do with creation for like the 17892471 time.

How is the creation model scientific at all, it can't be observed!
You man not agree with what the proposed observations of evolution are but to submit something that literally can't and call it science is crazy.

And your first quote is kinda just thrown in at the end in it's own little box, not sure what that is about.
I am a god wondering agnostic, where does that leave the bias

Not sure atheist can hate something they don't believe in btw.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Not sure atheist can hate something they don't believe in btw.

That's quotable lol.

Also many people here on ATS have claimed that atheists hate Christians. How would they hate people? Everybody is just the same.

a reply to: Isurrender73

1. Abiogenesis
2. Single Cell to Multi Cell
3. Physically observe cross Kingdom - a plant physically observed to become an animal. Since plants and animals are both DNA based, either they have a common creator or common ancestor.
4. Physically observe the separation of cellular organisms from asexual to male/female
5. Physically observe an animal cross Phylum
6. Physically observe an animal cross Class
7. Physically observe an animal cross Order
8. Physically observe an animal cross Family
9. Physically observe an organism cross Genius
10. We have observed Speciation.

I was going to call this list "complete BS" but that doesn't do it justice. What you've got here is utter twaddle. Taxonomic ranks are the invention of human minds attempting to classify organisms in a useful manner. Humans could classify organisms in as many or as few ranks as they choose to BECAUSE THEY ARE CONCEPTS AND ONLY EXIST IN THE HUMAN MIND.

You also have a profound misconception about what theory means in the context of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is an extensible framework of related explanations and concepts that is itself constantly evolving. If it helps you, maybe you should consider evolutionary theory as being a collection of intersecting theories. The validity of individual parts are not necessarily contingent on other parts (though of course, sometimes they are) and importantly, evolutionary theory is not like a syllogism where a gap is a missing preposition that makes drawing a conclusion logically impossible.

Since DNA forming on 2 separate planets without having a common origin/creator should be mathematically impossible.

What is your basis for this statement?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Lotsa flags and lotsa stars but no evidence

It does seem funny that you have all that support but nothing valid

Should we go on some more

Should I explain my position and comment

You would think that a thread with no comments, no evidence, nothing of substance would receive no flags or stars.
Kinda funny how evolutionists will support something that has nothing valid based on the simple fact that they agree with it, they support it.

I am not sold on evolution, I kind of think there is something missing

I would not flag or star this thread based on what has been offered so far, funny how many others have.

I offer nothing because I have seen nothing

Looking forward to something that might justiy a flag or star.

Here you go. Have fun.

www.talkorigins.org...

I find it rather lazy and insulting to the scientific world how people can't just do a simple intelligent Google search such as "instances of observed speciation" its not hard.