Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by futuretense
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

In regards to the story of Noah’s ark……It is worthy to consider marsupials of Australia and other geospecific regional species. For instance, let's take a Duckbill platypus, Kiwi bird and/or the Koala bear........they are only found in one place on Earth.......the continent of Australia.

Regardless of where Noah and his family lived, once they gathered each species on the ark and then landed after the flood seceded, all those animals would appear in areas of the Earth at least within the continent he landed on……..unless the ark landed on the continant of Australia.

But then how would you explain species only found on……. say the islands of Hawaii?

There is little evidence to assume anyone could have loaded all the species for reproduction after the flood and then have them dispersed in such a geospecific region to the exclusions of all others by using an ark.

But I'm open to alternative suggestions if you have any.

Insert Sarcasm here

This is funny an evolutionist who doesn't believe that animals that were separated by water evolved to look a little different. lol.

I know that this goes against observable science and is an assumption, based on faith, so I am not stating this as fact. We cannot know that the land masses did not separate sometime after the flood allowing sufficient time for reproduction and migration. If this assumption is correct than creation, the flood, and the diversity could all co-exists. The only thing we know is how the land separates now and it is logical for you to not come to my conclusion. But you cannot disprove my theory.

Wow a creationist that accepts half of the evolutionist theory. Amazingly the half that science can prove. And you call me a mystic who believes in fairy tales

Here we sit arguing to no end - while the twittering of little birds outside our window proclaim the happy and joy filled glory of the living God.

And no, I'm afraid nothing posted so far in this thread serves as proof for any of the claims you guys make. You either fill gaps in knowledge (aka "something had to make it") with magic (aka god), or post examples of what people BELIEVED back then...which as should be abundantly clear, isn't necessarily how reality really was.

But, Mr XYZ if you aren't going to take the time to review the evidence which has continually been provided to you is it really fair to pre-suppose that it doesn't serve as "proof"?

Many hard working scientist of different fields put time into collecting the data. Discount and refuse their theories if you like... but you aren't talking about theories and premises and suppositions... you are immediately discounting the evidence... and that's just not polite (or fair).

Aren't these the very behaviors which you have complained about time and time again in many of your post in several different threads, includeing this one?

Just a thought.

reply to post by Kicking2bears


So many logic flaws

The fossilized trees were a point that supports the idea of large plants being uprooted and tossed about the earth in a sudden rapid fashion.

How on earth are fossilized trees proof that they were uprooted in a rapid fashion??? We can explain why they are located in tons of different places, and trees tend to fall when for various reasons. A global flood would leave sedimental evidence behind, more than trees...and the trees all had to be the same age, which also isn't the case. And lastly, have you ever thrown a piece of wood into the water and left it there for 40 days...that piece of wood will rot, not fossilize

The post about large formations (such as the Grand canyon) happening rapidly was actually about an event that was witnessed, documented and is still being studied which happened in Texas in 2002 when a dam broke. It created a landscape which is remarkably similar to the Grand Canyon... only smaller.

Link & pics...and even if they exist, it still wouldn't work because there's no evidence of that much water in the area while the canyon was formed. The river carved its way down because the stone isn't all that strong compared to let's say granite.

And you know what these prove? Not nothing, but not much... They simply prove that there are fossilized trees around the world that were all deposited at around the same time in history... and that if a Dam breaks in Texas it can create a landscape which is similar in appearence to the Grand Canyon.

Those trees weren't all fossilized around the same time...there are gaps of that go waaaaay beyond years. And yeah, an actual scientific article about that damn would be nice.

And for the record, the grand canyon was carved out of stone over an enormous timescale. A damn breaking mostly removes soil and some rocks that loosen. That wasn't the case at the grand canyon...

I think what really bothered you was a creationist (ish) who took a few hours of his day and provided some scientific evidence that was linked together with presumptions and assumptions (i.e. theories).

What you posted can't be called scientific evidence, you posted a couple of flawed hypothesis that are easily debunkable (like those trees).

But isn't that exactly the method that Evolutionist use? All the geological evidence by itself proves is that things happened in places sometime in the past. Everything else is what you Believe that it means. It's okay to have faith my friend. Your religion doesn't have to be the same as mine.

I only care about logic/rationality when trying to learn about the world...religion doesn't care about logic/rationality, as is easily demonstrable. So sorry, I don't follow a religion

Evolution is a fact... life evolves...

Having said that... Human's represent a very rare spike in evolution. Nothing else in history matches it. We are an anomaly.

So, I don't believe evolution is the only reason for our intelligence. I think there was design here. I'm just not ready to call man's creator God. I can understand and respect the need for humility in the face of one's creator, but to assume they are God? That's so last millennium.

My vote is on genetic manipulation.

reply to post by MrXYZ


.I COULD GO ON BUT THE PROBLEM FOR UNBELIEVERS IS NOT EVIDENCE, IT IS IN YOUR HEART TO HATE AND FEAR WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, AND THAT IS THE GOD OF THE ISRAELITES ..YHVH.. THE UNPRONOUNCEABLE NAME OF GOD.................... I DONT HAVE TO PROVE THAT GOD EXIST, YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE DOSENT. EVERY THING I STATE HAS PROVEN EVIDENCE THE FACT THAT YOU FAIL TO ACCEPT IT IS NOT UP TO ME ,GOD CHOSE A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND CERTAIN TYPE OF PEOPLE TO JOIN HIM IN GLORY, I COULD GO ON BUT YOUVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY DARWINISM(EVEN THE KING OF BABYLON KNEW AND RESPECTED THE GOD OF THE JEWS, THIS GENERATION WE LIVE IN IS THE MOST SHAMEFUL IN THE HISTORY OF MAN.THIS IS WHY WE WILL LIVE TO SEE THE END, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE ANCIENTS WERE SMARTER THAN 99 PERCENT OF OUR PRESENT POPULATION). I CAN PIONT YOU TO QUANTUM MECHANICS AMONGST MANNY THINGS BUT LIKE MT OPENING SENTENCE SAYS...............................ANY WAY GOD BLESS YOU ......

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So basically you want to create your own fantasy world that doesn't have to be based on logic/rationality or objective evidence. That's ok...as long sa you realize it's a BELIEF and not based on anything remotely similar to objective evidence. Without objective evidence, and your "hypothesis" has none, it's not really credible.

The problem we have is I don't believe that your evidence is logical or rational. The number of assumptions that need to be made support your evidence it is remarkable that they call this a theory. Every piece of the theory is filled with assumptions. My BELIEF only has one assumption. Myself and others have provided scientific evidence, real scientific evidence, that supports that my conclusion is at least as logical as yours.

"My" evidence is testable and verifiable...it's the very prerequisite of scientific method. We can accurately PREDICT outcomes based on the theory, and predicting future outcomes like this wouldn't be possible if the theory were wrong. Hell, we're using the theory in modern medicine.

Evolution and the origins of earth cannot be tested by scientific method. But you keep thinking they can because you are obviously smarter than me. If only one of your arguments is based on an assumption and not on something observable than by scientific method it cannot be stated as fact. I have shown you how your entire theory is based on assumptions but you refuse to see.

Let me repeat myself, I am not debating creation vs evolution I am debating fact vs assumption. You keep telling me that your assumption is indeed fact and therefore better than mine. Not once have I said that my assumption is better. Do I believe my assumption is better, well of course, otherwise I would simply agree with you.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Here we sit arguing to no end - while the twittering of little birds outside our window proclaim the happy and joy filled glory of the living God.

You want to know what bothers me about this debate? That I might be the only one here for whom that comment brought a smile to their face, and that makes me sad.

reply to post by MrXYZ

There's no sense in provideing you information you can search on your own. I posted the links with articles which contained scientist names and when they did the research. At this point I think you are simply being deliberately antagonistic my friend. Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I apologize.

But when someone continueally debunks the evidence provided without explaining specifically why and without demonstrating that they reviewed said evidence... that leads me to the conclusion I just made. So I'm sorry if your actions and words on this post are misrepresentative of your intentions.

Again many people have provided you scientific evidence over the last many pages with links and so forth. You are not even bothering to review the evidence. This is not "denying ignorance". It is quite the opposite.

(My gf is calling so I'm outta here. See yall tomorrow ATS. Have a good night and God bless. Or peace and good wishes if you prefer.)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Here we sit arguing to no end - while the twittering of little birds outside our window proclaim the happy and joy filled glory of the living God.

You want to know what bothers me about this debate? That I might be the only one here for whom that comment brought a smile to their face, and that makes me sad.

here lol
yes the many wonders of God.

Originally posted by turk182
Ultimately, those who buy into evolution, are forced to admit that their furthest ancestor was a rock.

"God can raise up children of Abraham, from these stones!"

I can't prove it wrong personally,I don't have the qualifications to do so.But what I can tell you is that it has brought about the New Age religion which occupies the U.N. and is being taught around the globe.Helena Blavatsky used a lot of Darwin's theories to write the secret doctrine which has brought about the birth of Theosophy and New Age thinking.

Also I might add that Benjamin Creme is a well known New Ager(Helena Blavatsky student)who speaks at the United Nations frequently.In 1996 he was invited to the United Nations in New York by the Society for Enlightenment and Transformation.Below is an excerpt from his speech.
Source

Maitreya has a task: His main task is to show humanity how to live together in peace. It is so simple – it requires only to share the resources of the world. Sharing is the key. In one stroke, when we accept the principle of sharing, we will create the trust which is needed for all other action. When trust has been established, the other problems will dissolve and fade away. Goodwill, born of trust, makes the solving of these difficulties simple acts of common sense.

They have been preparing the way for the Anti-Christ for a long time,better known as the Maitreya.

reply to post by Daedal

Just for the record, I'm not him!

But if the "heart of the world" reincarnates, we ought to consider the meaning of the name

Maitreya's name is derived from the Sanskrit 'maitri' meaning 'universal loving-kindness'. Infinitely compassionate and all-knowing, buddhas teach by their words and example in order to guide us along the path to our own spiritual maturity.

We could use such a "guy", provided he does not point to himself, but to everyone, individually, collectively, and to no one in particular, since the true second coming does not come as a mere personage, or from any particular direction ie: no one will be able to point and say "there he is!" or "here he comes!" or to himself, saying "I am he". That's all false, and a lie.

The incarnating "heart of the world", Christ consciousness, the "new age" - represents (re presents) the emergence of an age of spirit AND reason, or a reason which is, unreasonably reasonable!

So if a man of peace comes preaching peace to the world, in the spirit of Christ and Buddha, and all the fundamentalist conservative Christians end up losing their minds, then so be it!

We must remember, that Jesus is the one who was, who is, and who is to come, and that each and every one of us are him in potential, as our truest self, at the deepest and most fundamental part of our being.

I myself intend to keep on coming back AND to keep on improving - does this mean that some day, in some future life, Christians will pelt me with stones and call me anti-Christ because I possess the heart and the mind of Christ? That's aburd!

Best Regards,

NewAgeMan

actually i can. in the big bang where did the two colliding objects come from and out of all the infinite space of space how are they, being extremely minute in size in such a large area, able to hit each other and create a universe shaking explosion in which non-organic materials are put into logical order and slowly evolve into organic material. not even scientifically possible. by me saying that there would be no chance for life at all even if they did collide

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Ever heard about radiometric dating? The margin of error is so small, and the age difference between dinosaurs and humans so large, we can say for a FACT humans weren't around at the time of the dinosaurs.

You mean the radiometric dating which is based off exponential decay, using τ without equating mass, distance, velocity, and other factors throughout the age of the universe, or even solar system formation mass, velocity, and speed to adjust appropriately? Or do you accept time as a constant, never changing, since "time" began? How very Newtonian of you.

Time is not constant, defined by Einstein's theory of relativity and smashed the Newtonian concept of time into little pieces. Any data based off a "constant" which is a variable, can never be accurately determined. That includes radiometric dating, which is intrinsically linked to τ. If time was "faster" or "slower" at any point in the "past", your radiometric data is useless to determine true age. Given the variables that impact time, we really have no clue how old anything really is, you can only assume age based on "current" τ conditions.

Einstein stated: "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

I direct you to the last segment of his quote. You're looking at an illusion, and accepting it as hard cold indisputable fact.

So no, I don't think you know where science ends and faith begins...apparently for you, faith never ends and science never starts

Actually any science based off time is "faith based". The "real" nature of time that can be best summed up, is that It's already happened, will happen, and is happening. If you take yourself out of the 3D box above "time", you might begin to understand.

Ether way, the argument is pointless. Most people are just happy to accept the 3D world and a Newtonian concept of time.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Evolution is a fact... life evolves...

Having said that... Human's represent a very rare spike in evolution. Nothing else in history matches it. We are an anomaly.

So, I don't believe evolution is the only reason for our intelligence. I think there was design here. I'm just not ready to call man's creator God. I can understand and respect the need for humility in the face of one's creator, but to assume they are God? That's so last millennium.

My vote is on genetic manipulation.

You are misguided.

God does not care what you believe in. God has given freedom of action to man, so you can believe in anything and do anything.

But remember death (and birth) is in God's control.

You can perform action but power of judgment is solely vested in God. You will face result of every action that you do (the law of karma).

Veda has extensive discussion of creation of universe, and life. But it requires separate thread.

This thread has become completely unmanageable.

The vedic concept of discussion is between two persons. It is called 'shashtrarth'.

When many people participate, it becomes a shouting match.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Man has created the ideal that we have created ourselves and are not governed by a sepecific law of creation or evolution.
For a man to propose that Jesus Christ is appearing to the masses,but also to every other religious ideology simultaneously is a creation of man's ideas not as a collective,but as small finite group within ourselves,that claim "this man is all god's in one."
Furthermore to state that "Jesus Christ will not appear" to all is misleading,because the one I know said differently according to text.
Will you or can you provide evidence as to what this gentlemen is saying or believing and disseminating as truth.

abovetopsecret.com
I started a link here which will get into detail of the U.N. and the New Age movement.

if i could prove evolution wrong, i wouldn't be hanging around ATS, now would i?

Originally posted by vedatruth

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Evolution is a fact... life evolves...

Having said that... Human's represent a very rare spike in evolution. Nothing else in history matches it. We are an anomaly.

So, I don't believe evolution is the only reason for our intelligence. I think there was design here. I'm just not ready to call man's creator God. I can understand and respect the need for humility in the face of one's creator, but to assume they are God? That's so last millennium.

My vote is on genetic manipulation.

You are misguided.

God does not care what you believe in. God has given freedom of action to man, so you can believe in anything and do anything.

But remember death (and birth) is in God's control.

You can perform action but power of judgment is solely vested in God. You will face result of every action that you do (the law of karma).

Veda has extensive discussion of creation of universe, and life. But it requires separate thread.

This thread has become completely unmanageable.

The vedic concept of discussion is between two persons. It is called 'shashtrarth'.

When many people participate, it becomes a shouting match.

And where did you learn all these facts about God? Was it from a book written by men?

It blows my mind the way the human brain can be brainwashed to such a degree to completely ignore all logic.

reply to post by hibishi

An alien LHC (Large Hadron Collider) experiment gone horribly wrong (for them)..?