Can you prove evolution wrong

no, that is HARDLY good enough. not in the time man evolved. No way.

those are mainly just the most extreme anatomical cases you can come up with, they are not even in the same class yet even anatomically, the changes are immense. Mankind thinks of himself as being a *higher soul* than even large fairly smart animals. He himself thinks of it as an entirely different level of existence so how can anyone really say the changes are not huge. It's in everything people practice, everything they do except those who opt for truly primitive means of existence and those do not fair well without some strict back-adaptation.

and the question I present remains, what of the changes that do exist between animal and man... if they are not physical adaptation then what the heck are they? It still means that there is a possibility of a higher order of control if this is what we are headed for... in an evolutionary sense. If the process is one that makes us smarter, then there is smarter to come even still. If we think ourselves as more divine, than the only evolving consequence can be... there is even more divine yet to come.

And these changes were not slight, they were not undetectable changes, they were profound changes.
...and yet by evolutionary logic, more and profound and controlling and smarter and even more divine change is yet to come.

evolutions own logic presents this as the ultimate outcome but it cannot even think about grasping the notion that what is even more like us is even more able to control outcome... even more capable of independent creation than we are even now.

that's kinda crazy.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


sorry turk, looks like i was a little late with my warning.

reply to post by Quadrivium
Hi
I would not change your name as it is sure to be shortened to Elkopop which makes you sound like a teenage fortified juice drink.

So am I correct that you accept that we (humans) are part of the group labeled primates and have a common ancestor but not that we evolved from a more ancient mammal ancestor?

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

those are mainly just the most extreme anatomical cases you can come up with, they are not even in the same class yet even anatomically, the changes are immense.

So wait...dog like ancestor to seals is not extreme enough, but a rat-like creature to a whale is "too extreme" and the changes are "too immense"?

Be specific please

Mankind thinks of himself as being a *higher soul* than even large fairly smart animals. He himself thinks of it as an entirely different level of existence so how can anyone really say the changes are not huge. It's in everything people practice, everything they do except those who opt for truly primitive means of existence and those do not fair well without some strict back-adaptation.

I'm pretty sure that lion roaming the savanna is also thinking he's the greatest thing since cake

We are CURRENTLY the most intelligent species on the planet...with an emphasis on "currently". Millions of years ago, the dinosaurs were "at the top".

and the question I present remains, what of the changes that do exist between animal and man... if they are not physical adaptation then what the heck are they? It still means that there is a possibility of a higher order of control if this is what we are headed for... in an evolutionary sense. If the process is one that makes us smarter, then there is smarter to come even still. If we think ourselves as more divine, than the only evolving consequence can be... there is even more divine yet to come.

What do you mean by "more devine"? We have ZERO evidence that a creator was at play...so right now, it might be a belief, but it's nothing more...and definitely not a fact. And of course the end result will be an increase in what we consider intelligence...but that doesn't mean we're the end product. In fact, given that we're still evolving, it's 100% clear that we AREN'T the end product. If you come to earth in 1m years, looking for humans looking like today...good luck

And these changes were not slight, they were not undetectable changes, they were profound changes.
...and yet by evolutionary logic, more and profound and controlling and smarter and even more divine change is yet to come.

Nobody's talking about divinity in relation to evolution because we have no evidence of it. But yeah, evolution continues

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, we have DNA evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature...happy with that?

What change is "enough" for you? We also know that seals have a dog-like ancestor. Happy with that? Or does the seal's head still look too much like a dog's for you?

Sure that makes me happy, why wouldn't it?
OH, Oh, I know. We could play a game! Here are the rules.......
1. You show me your proof.
2. I will show you my proof.
3. We will go on for another 159 pages.
Happy with that?

I could say that the elk and the hippo had a common ancestor as well.......... the elkopotumis. ( That makes me happy as well, I actually like the sound of it really.................ELKOMOTUMIS).

Some people on both sides are just closed minded, nothing to be done about it.
Me? Naaa, I actually can admit if I learn something new. And enjoy doing so. Then there are some who take that as a sign of weakness and think that they "got one up on me" or "owned me". Actually that is just a sign of their own close mindedness and unwillingness to change.
No, it has not happened yet, on this thread, but by a couple of the replies I have gotten I can tell that it won't be long.
Thank you for letting me rant, lol
signed,
Mr. Elkopotumis (you know I might actually change my username)

LINK

At least bother to read up about the stuff you're criticising...because clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The first link is a good start

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by turk182
Evolution is a THEORY. Therefore, it has never been proven to begin with.

uh oh turk, You're fixing to get schooled in the correct meaning of scientific terminology.
Run while you can,

edit on 2-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)

And rightfully so...because clearly he hasn't looked up what a scientific theory is. If he did, he'd know that it requires to be fully backed up by objective evidence, fully testable, and fully peer reviewed. So if any objective evidence goes against it, it's not a theory!

There...happy?

reply to post by Quadrivium
Yep, I cannot be bothered to go through the whole 'theory in science stuff' and is why I started a thread asking for an alternative explanation to the diversity we see.

The thread title change is also not a help as a challenge to prove evolution wrong was the last thing I wanted but you play the hand your dealt with.

I have toyed with the idea of restarting the thread under a new title but it means going through all that nonsense again.

reply to post by colin42

Hello again colin,
I actually have a few ideas about neanderthals and modern humans. The one answer I like best is found in the first two chapters of Genesis, the few Christians that I spoke to about it think I am loon but to me it makes perfect since. Maybe we can discuss it later?
I know I promised that I would not try to prove evolution wrong but Mr. XYZ has left me little choice.
I need a few minutes to gather the details but it will be done lol.

reply to post by iterationzero

So you're now claiming that the aliens gathered people of only one haplogroup at a time and dropped them off in series over the course of a couple hundred millennia in a way that just happens to look just like we evolved here on planet Earth and migrated out of Africa? And you of course have some evidence to back that up? Oh, right, you admitted earlier that there was no evidence.

People could have migrated to one area after the flood. It could also just be chance that the same haplogroup was brought down later. I'm sorry but it was a good idea but there are just to many variables, especially when we know there were people here prior to Adam and Eve or at least at the same time.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, we have DNA evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature...happy with that?

What change is "enough" for you? We also know that seals have a dog-like ancestor. Happy with that? Or does the seal's head still look too much like a dog's for you?

Sure that makes me happy, why wouldn't it?
OH, Oh, I know. We could play a game! Here are the rules.......
1. You show me your proof.
2. I will show you my proof.
3. We will go on for another 159 pages.
Happy with that?

I could say that the elk and the hippo had a common ancestor as well.......... the elkopotumis. ( That makes me happy as well, I actually like the sound of it really.................ELKOMOTUMIS).

Some people on both sides are just closed minded, nothing to be done about it.
Me? Naaa, I actually can admit if I learn something new. And enjoy doing so. Then there are some who take that as a sign of weakness and think that they "got one up on me" or "owned me". Actually that is just a sign of their own close mindedness and unwillingness to change.
No, it has not happened yet, on this thread, but by a couple of the replies I have gotten I can tell that it won't be long.
Thank you for letting me rant, lol
signed,
Mr. Elkopotumis (you know I might actually change my username)

LINK

At least bother to read up about the stuff you're criticising...because clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The first link is a good start

This link is broken....

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by colin42

 

Hello again colin,

I know I promised that I would not try to prove evolution wrong but Mr. XYZ has left me little choice.
I need a few minutes to gather the details but it will be done lol.

Hmm this is going to be good.
This could be.......

reply to post by flyingfish


Sorry for the broken link, seems ATS doesn't allow "let me google that for you"

LINK

reply to post by MrXYZ

ATTENTION: EVOLUTION PROVEN WRONG!!

Dear Mr. XYZ,
You may have noticed on page 157 that I touched on a small fact.
I made a promise to colin, so all I did was touched on it briefly here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I stated......
"What if it were discovered that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly?
Would this ruin the theory of evolution? No. it would adapt in order to survive. Why? Because the simple truth is that we do not know everything. We learn, we grow and we adapt."

If you would, please go to the following link: www.sciencevsevolution.org...
and look under: "Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis".

Therefor by your own definition........

SO IF ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE GOES AGAINST IT, IT'S NOT A THEORY!!!!!!!!!

...........evolution can not be an actual Theory, just a hypothesis as I stated in my first couple of post.

(also from you)

THERE.......HAPPY?

signed,
Mr. Elkopotumis


ps. the link you provided earlier did not work.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Berthault? You have to be kidding, right? That guy is such a hack. He made a few studies that came up with results (which were peer reviewed and confirmed) that however have NOTHING to do with his other claims.

There's a lot of information about this young earth creationist clown: LINK

He's a bit like a new Doctor Dino (aka Hovind)

I asked for OBJECTIVE evidence that's supported by FACTS...and not random claims made buy a guy who never bothered to prove his later claims (such as the fast sedimentation).

He got one part of his claims peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists, and then simply came out with new claims saying because he was right the first time, he's now right as well. Never showed any data confirming these claims, or let anyone peer review his latest claims...but who cares, right? He lives in a LaLa Land given that he believes in a young earth.

Please try again, this time with objective evidence not some quotes of a snake oil salesman

By the way, the link above actually bothers to post the sources and prove its point with facts...something Berthault doesn't bother with

You might wanna change the first sentence of your reply too, because obviously you failed at that. Also, capitalizing stuff and increasing the font size doesn't make it true

reply to post by MrXYZ

Of course he is, I understand completely...............................I truly feel for you. I am done. (knew better to begin with)
Some people just refuse to open their minds, anything that does not fit their world view is beneath them.

YOU GOT OWNED, caught by your own words and are too childish to admit it. Grow up, nobody like a spoiled brat.
later,
Quad

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Of course he is, I understand completely...............................I truly feel for you. I am done. (knew better to begin with)
Some people just refuse to open their minds, anything that does not fit their world view is beneath them.

YOU GOT OWNED, caught by your own words and are too childish to admit it. Grow up, nobody like a spoiled brat.
later,
Quad

What do you mean "I got owned"? Are we in high school?

I asked for objective evidence disproving evolution. You posted claims made by a guy who's claims were COMPLETELY DEBUNKED in scientific peer review. You might not like this as it goes against your BELIEF, but the reality is, the facts and objective evidence don't match what that clown claims. So your post didn't disprove evolution given that the claims made in them are demonstrably false.

Some people just refuse to open their minds, anything that does not fit their world view is beneath them.

I take it you're describing yourself? In your case, you're closing your mind to objective evidence, logic, rationality, and facts.

Sometimes reality can be harsh...but I'll let it settle in for you, because your ad hominem attacks make it clear you're way to emotional to have a rational debate

oh, i just cannot TALK to the XYZ guy.

it is NOT ME saying that man is more DIVINE... IT IS MAN.

he puts himself way above other species on the rank of life. Don't you understand the simple point i am making? It DOESN'T MATTER what I believe. that is NOT what i am arguing.

M...A...N.... exalts himself. M...A....N sees himself as one who has right due to his sentience to control his surroundings by whichever creative route he choose to take. Get that first...ok?

Now...evolution is a GRADUATING SCALE,,,got it? (jeez, I really hate when i have to do this)

SO... that means that the differences between US and ANIMALS....WITH THAT GRADUATING SCALE....will only become more and more different than the animals... more and more of a mindset that we are of a totally different rank altogether.

So, if evolution is real up to this point, why would it stop there? Why would there not be MORE and MORE FUTURE SPECIES THAT PUTS ITSELF EVEN ABOVE MAN?...and in EVERY ASPECT IN WHICH WE PUT OUR OWN SELVES ABOVE ANIMALS...and what aspects are those? just physical aspects? NO.... LOOK AROUND. How many dead human bodies do you see in the grocery store? How many donkeys do you see getting BAPTIZED? Sure, NASA might send MONKEYS in space but it sure as HELL isn't because they are smarter... it's because THEIR LIVES ARE NOT AS VALUED AMONG MEN.

that is THE VERY direction that evolution has us going in. creation too.

it is ALL IN SYNC with THAT GRADUATING SCALE when you compare it to the differences we are looking at NOW.

Independent creativity.

Evolutions OWN SCALE presents a creative force or species much smarter and much more deserving that US as the new END RESULT simply by looking at it's own damn process!

It's really a simple concept, why is this person arguing with my personal beliefs when i am not even TALKING about my own beliefs. I am talking about the evolutionary scale here.

personally, I HOPE that the evolutionary scale is wrong and that we do not simply just become more FULL OF OURSELVES but there is no doubt that THIS is the stark difference between man and animals.

Let's HOPE that mankind actually looses some of that ingrained ego while becoming more knowledgeable and divine.

Such as christ on the cross.

It's for the sake of the realization. You did not just "get" this gift of being smarter... you must RESPECT it as well.

It didn't just happen, there is MEANING. that is my opinion, but even an evolutionist must realize that in the evolutionary process, there is a possibility of a species that is higher than man and would serve as his own master.... by the way of the logic of his own theory.

Evolution does what.... EVOLVES.

evolutionist say we evolve on a graduating scale but will not concede that there may be a higher life form.

REALLY DUMB.

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

oh, i just cannot TALK to the XYZ guy.

it is NOT ME saying that man is more DIVINE... IT IS MAN.

I and a ton of others disagree, so you can't generalize like that...and capitalizing your letters doesn't make it any more true

Not sure why you don't like debating with me...can't deal with objective evidence and facts?

Now...evolution is a GRADUATING SCALE,,,got it? (jeez, I really hate when i have to do this)

SO... that means that the differences between US and ANIMALS....WITH THAT GRADUATING SCALE....will only become more and more different than the animals... more and more of a mindset that we are of a totally different rank altogether.

We have a higher brain capacity than animals, but biologically we aren't any different. A few million years ago, dinosaurs were the most intelligent being. And in a few million years whatever will be the most intelligent life form on earth might be a descendant of us, but he won't be homo sapiens

So, if evolution is real up to this point, why would it stop there? Why would there not be MORE and MORE FUTURE SPECIES THAT PUTS ITSELF EVEN ABOVE MAN?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Due to evolution, in a few million years whatever might be the most intelligent life form might not exactly look human to us.

How many dead human bodies do you see in the grocery store? How many donkeys do you see getting BAPTIZED? Sure, NASA might send MONKEYS in space but it sure as HELL isn't because they are smarter... it's because THEIR LIVES ARE NOT AS VALUED AMONG MEN.

Just fyi, humans kill others all the time. We don't really value human life above others all that much...at least some of us don't. We send monkeys to space (or did so decades ago) because their bodies are similar to ours (evidence in favor of evolution fyi). It's normal we try to protect people we like, just like a pack of wolves will also defend eachother against an outside threat or danger.

it is ALL IN SYNC with THAT GRADUATING SCALE when you compare it to the differences we are looking at NOW.

What difference? How is human evolution other than that of animals or plants???

Independent creativity.

Again, what are you talking about? What creativity? Evolution isn't a conscious process!

Evolutions OWN SCALE presents a creative force or species much smarter and much more deserving that US as the END RESULT simply by looking at it's own damn process!

I agree that so far the result seems to be an increase in intelligence and brain capacity. However, what on earth is your proof that a conscious creative force is behind all that? And how exactly does this disprove the theory of evolution? I really struggle to see your point? Do you believe the theory or not?

It's really a simple concept, why is this person arguing with my personal beliefs when i am not even TALKING about my own beliefs. I am talking about the evolutionary scale here.

You said we are devine...as in..."from god". We have ZERO evidence of that!! So yeah, you ARE talking about your personal beliefs...and you also try to sell them off as truths or facts...which is obviously wrong

reply to post by Quadrivium

ATTENTION: EVOLUTION PROVEN WRONG!!

This should be interesting.

Dear Mr. XYZ,
You may have noticed on page 157 that I touched on a small fact.
I made a promise to colin, so all I did was touched on it briefly here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I stated......
"What if it were discovered that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly?
Would this ruin the theory of evolution? No. it would adapt in order to survive. Why? Because the simple truth is that we do not know everything. We learn, we grow and we adapt."

I think you'd be better off if you explained which facet of the theory of evolution you feel this information would falsify and why.

If you would, please go to the following link: www.sciencevsevolution.org...
and look under: "Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis".

Oh, that Guy Berthault. What a card. He makes that fallacious leap that so many "creation scientists" do -- because something can happen in a certain way, then it must have happened that way. To give a sense of how ludicrous that leap is, it's like saying that because we can perform in vitro fertilization, all humans must have been conceived in that way and therefore the concept of fertilization via sexual intercourse is impossible. Here's just one critique of Berthault's YEC claims based on his sedimentation work.

Therefor by your own definition........
SO IF ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE GOES AGAINST IT, IT'S NOT A THEORY!!!!!!!!!

I think you'd be hard pressed to call the unpublished, non-peer reviewed research you linked to "objective", regardless of how many exclamation points you use.

...........evolution can not be an actual Theory, just a hypothesis as I stated in my first couple of post.

In your mind, are any of the currently accepted scientific theories actually theories? Or are they all hypotheses? Is the theory of gravity a theory or a hypothesis? Is heliocentric theory a theory or a hypothesis? Is cell theory a theory or a hypothesis?

(also from you)
THERE.......HAPPY?

Not really. No offense, but I was expecting better from you.