NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Fenster]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

Again I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

I never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.

There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.

Do you understand "humans came from apes" doesn't mean modern apes turned into us, right? That's why you can't observe it. They mean we are related to the same family - cousins.

I understand the theory of evolution. I just don't understand why we don't have millions of these transitional creatures along the fossil record.

While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show species with intermediate or transitional features, it was virtually unexplored at the time. Knowing what he knew about rarity of fossilization and incomplete nature the geologic record, Darwin actually imagined the record was so poor, it was likely paleontologists would never find the transitional fossils.

In 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published, very few fossils had been discovered and described. It was only in the early 19th century that fossils of ancient beasts like dinosaurs were formally identified. These days, with millions of specimens resting in museum drawers, no one would say paleontologists don’t have enough material to work with for many, many lifetimes - with more and more to be discovered.


Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus and other amphibious whales
Pezosiren portelli
Tiktaalik

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenam...ort-evolution/

[Alpha]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

Again I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

I never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.

There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.

Do you understand "humans came from apes" doesn't mean modern apes turned into us, right? That's why you can't observe it. They mean we are related to the same family - cousins.

I understand the theory of evolution. I just don't understand why we don't have millions of these transitional creatures along the fossil record.

While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show species with intermediate or transitional features, it was virtually unexplored at the time. Knowing what he knew about rarity of fossilization and incomplete nature the geologic record, Darwin actually imagined the record was so poor, it was likely paleontologists would never find the transitional fossils.

In 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published, very few fossils had been discovered and described. It was only in the early 19th century that fossils of ancient beasts like dinosaurs were formally identified. These days, with millions of specimens resting in museum drawers, no one would say paleontologists don’t have enough material to work with for many, many lifetimes - with more and more to be discovered.


Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus and other amphibious whales
Pezosiren portelli
Tiktaalik

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenam...ort-evolution/

I like that you said support, not prove. There's so much to go into here. DNA wasn't around then yet either. Again carbon dating is only accurate to roughly 60,000 years. Anything beyond that is speculation. But I would challenge you to visit any dinosaur exhibition, and while there ask what displays have real dinosaur fossil's. I can guarantee it will be none. They'll give you some story about keeping the real ones locked away safely.

[Master]

I have seen many programmes where children/adults have sent cameras on balloons into the atmosphere and the world looks round. They explode and come back down to earth. The cost now is relatively cheap.

[Alpha]

I have seen many programmes where children/adults have sent cameras on balloons into the atmosphere and the world looks round. They explode and come back down to earth. The cost now is relatively cheap.

It will be a fish eyed lense, like a go pro.

And just back to the claim that I am saying the images are fake, NASA freely admits that the images of earth have been photo shopped. Other images you can download from NASAs official gallery, download some free photo forensic software and find evidence for yourself that images have been altered or shadowed areas display no sign of noise.

[Master]

I have seen many programmes where children/adults have sent cameras on balloons into the atmosphere and the world looks round. They explode and come back down to earth. The cost now is relatively cheap.

It will be a fish eyed lense, like a go pro.

And just back to the claim that I am saying the images are fake, NASA freely admits that the images of earth have been photo shopped. Other images you can download from NASAs official gallery, download some free photo forensic software and find evidence for yourself that images have been altered or shadowed areas display no sign of noise.

I would love to take you in a rocket and show you the world is round.

[Alpha]

I have seen many programmes where children/adults have sent cameras on balloons into the atmosphere and the world looks round. They explode and come back down to earth. The cost now is relatively cheap.

It will be a fish eyed lense, like a go pro.

And just back to the claim that I am saying the images are fake, NASA freely admits that the images of earth have been photo shopped. Other images you can download from NASAs official gallery, download some free photo forensic software and find evidence for yourself that images have been altered or shadowed areas display no sign of noise.

I would love to take you in a rocket and show you the world is round.

Your common sense tells you a pressurised system needs some sort of containment or the gases will float away (think a can if deodorant for example), our atmosphere has no containment, and what's worse they tell you it's side by side with a vacuum.

You believe the earth is what shape now? I can't keep up with the changes. The had to create the tilt because of polarise. Now the earth is pear shaped. Funny cause all those photo shopped images of earth look round.

[palmerq]

The flat earth troll stuff is really weird(and funny) to read (the ancient Greeks worked it out over two thousand years ago).Even though it total troll stuff or the words of the deranged or both(aka kanye west), it is actually a really good oportunity for people to learn some physics and astronomy(and that satellites really don't defy the second law of thermodynamics.... errrr wot), so you can learn some stuff rather than the earth is round coz it looks round. Astronomy is actually pretty cool.