It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith VS Science & Athiests

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Seriously? The chance of that actually happening is like me flipping a coin and when it lands it's grows arms and leg's and starts playing a Nintendo Wii.




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

168617
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


So you think I should read the text books and put my faith into the teachings of someone I have never seen before in my life? That's starting to sound like religion... Does that book teach me how I can turn two animals into another species of animal?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


If you pick the right book then you'll get one that explains evolution to you properly. And it's more a question of information rather than 'faith'.


The point is Evolution cannot be observed right now (Speaking about animals mutating and creating new animals). It is impossible.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

168617
The point is Evolution cannot be observed right now (Speaking about animals mutating and creating new animals). It is impossible.


Well, no, not right now in the air in front of your nose. You have to look at the fossil record to compare what things are like now to what they're like in the past. Look at horses for instance. They still have vestigial remnants of their other toes. Go back far enough and you see horses with different shaped feet. It's a gradual process. You seem to think that it's very, very quick. Can I ask you why you seem to think that?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


So you think I should read the text books and put my faith into the teachings of someone I have never seen before in my life? That's starting to sound like religion... Does that book teach me how I can turn two animals into another species of animal?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


Didn't I mention the bibliography on Wikipedia? It's literally a list of resources by which you can contact dozens and dozens of scientists, researchers and professionals who have made it their life's work to know the information by which we've established the contents of those textbooks. But at this point, it sounds to me as though you just want an argument. You want to win, not learn. And if that's the case, then I'm wasting my time in trying to help you. But that's not my loss.
edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You're right. I even stated as much when I said that he wasn't worth talking to because he has no intention of trying to learn anything and just wants us to post information that he can ridicule like 3 pages ago. It's a shame really. The caliber of evolution skeptics used to be much better on this site.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Seriously? The chance of that actually happening is like me flipping a coin and when it lands it's grows arms and leg's and starts playing a Nintendo Wii.


Like a fifth (?) dimensional being speaking a planet into existence before creating a species that is intentionally flawed in design, forcing him to literally stand by as his own son was tortured and murdered in order to fix a mistake he knew was going to blow up in his face before he even made it, although it doesn't really fix the mistake because 90% of the species are going to fail and piss him off anyway. I mean, as long as we're discussing dubious scenarios...

edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You're right. I even stated as much when I said that he wasn't worth talking to because he has no intention of trying to learn anything and just wants us to post information that he can ridicule like 3 pages ago. It's a shame really. The caliber of evolution skeptics used to be much better on this site.


Well, I guess that's settled then. See you around the forums, Krazy. As soon as I post this, I'm deleting this thread from my subscriptions. I've had my fill of brick walls for a few hours or so.

edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

168617
The point is Evolution cannot be observed right now (Speaking about animals mutating and creating new animals). It is impossible.


Well, no, not right now in the air in front of your nose. You have to look at the fossil record to compare what things are like now to what they're like in the past. Look at horses for instance. They still have vestigial remnants of their other toes. Go back far enough and you see horses with different shaped feet. It's a gradual process. You seem to think that it's very, very quick. Can I ask you why you seem to think that?


That's the problem... The horse may of had different shaped feet back in the past but when it comes down to it, it's still a horse. All that has been changed is something that was already a part of the horse, it didn't change into a butterfly or a giraffe, it's still a horse.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You're right. I even stated as much when I said that he wasn't worth talking to because he has no intention of trying to learn anything and just wants us to post information that he can ridicule like 3 pages ago. It's a shame really. The caliber of evolution skeptics used to be much better on this site.


I want to see proof that two animals have come together to create another species of animal. That's all I ask and you cannot do it. Probably because it's impossible.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

168617
That's the problem... The horse may of had different shaped feet back in the past but when it comes down to it, it's still a horse. All that has been changed is something that was already a part of the horse, it didn't change into a butterfly or a giraffe, it's still a horse.


Erm, you're still missing the point. By several miles. Can I ask where you learnt about Evolution? Whoever told you about it seems to have skimped on the details. Horses were not always horses. They are related to tapirs and rhinos. They used to be quite small forest-dwelling creatures and were descended from Phenacodus.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's exactly the same
.... Both are based off putting faith into another's work and learning from it. Religion cannot prove that an invisible space man is watching what we do and likewise evolution cannot prove that 2 different animals can come together to create 1 new animal. Both are based off faith because both cannot be physically observed regardless of anyone's views or opinions. We can assume through experiments but unless it happens before our very eyes, that's all we are doing in both cases.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

168617
That's the problem... The horse may of had different shaped feet back in the past but when it comes down to it, it's still a horse. All that has been changed is something that was already a part of the horse, it didn't change into a butterfly or a giraffe, it's still a horse.


Erm, you're still missing the point. By several miles. Can I ask where you learnt about Evolution? Whoever told you about it seems to have skimped on the details. Horses were not always horses. They are related to tapirs and rhinos. They used to be quite small forest-dwelling creatures and were descended from Phenacodus.


Prove it? Give me something to laugh at... I guess they had horns also and were called unicorns?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

168617
I want to see proof that two animals have come together to create another species of animal. That's all I ask and you cannot do it. Probably because it's impossible.


Aha. Yes, you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. Sorry, but you need to find out a lot more, as otherwise this conversation is pointless. You seem to think that Evolution is an instant process. It's not, it's a gradual one.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

168617
Prove it? Give me something to laugh at... I guess they had horns also and were called unicorns?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


Erm, no. They were just smaller and rather different. Go to a natural history museum and look at a skeleton of Eohippus.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

168617
I want to see proof that two animals have come together to create another species of animal. That's all I ask and you cannot do it. Probably because it's impossible.


Aha. Yes, you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. Sorry, but you need to find out a lot more, as otherwise this conversation is pointless. You seem to think that Evolution is an instant process. It's not, it's a gradual one.


How the hell does a horse come from a rhino? that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. You could of at least said a horse come from a donkey or something.

I had a look, where doe the Rhino come into this ridiculous theory?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

168617

AngryCymraeg

168617
I want to see proof that two animals have come together to create another species of animal. That's all I ask and you cannot do it. Probably because it's impossible.


Aha. Yes, you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. Sorry, but you need to find out a lot more, as otherwise this conversation is pointless. You seem to think that Evolution is an instant process. It's not, it's a gradual one.


How the hell does a horse come from a rhino? that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. You could of at least said a horse come from a donkey or something.


.... oh dearie me. (Snort)
Horses do not come from rhinos. They are from the same family as tapirs and rhinos, meaning that they all have a common ancestor. They all evolved from that ancestor. I never said that horses came from rhinos. If you make such... interesting... assertions then it's no wonder that you don't understand what Evolution is. And I suspect that you're twisting things.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

168617

Krazysh0t
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You're right. I even stated as much when I said that he wasn't worth talking to because he has no intention of trying to learn anything and just wants us to post information that he can ridicule like 3 pages ago. It's a shame really. The caliber of evolution skeptics used to be much better on this site.


I want to see proof that two animals have come together to create another species of animal. That's all I ask and you cannot do it. Probably because it's impossible.


Stop being so obtuse. I want you to read the following very slowly since you seem to have a hard time grasping this concept:

Evolution doesn't work that way. Two different animals CANNOT and DON'T come together to make a different animal.

What happens is that mutations happen with a new generation of whatever life form you are looking at. These mutations make this new generation of the life form slightly different than its parents. Then the next generation has new mutations. This cycle continues for MANY generations of that life form. These mutations accrue over all these generations and eventually the life form is completely different than the ancestor it started out as. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Stop with the straw man antics with the "two animals coming together to create a completely different animal." That is just ridiculous concept and evolution doesn't even work CLOSE to that, let alone be able to show it happening.

ETA: I don't have much hope that you will understand this right (or at least purposely twist the information) so this is my last response to you. You have no desire to educate yourself correctly and want to just stew and laugh in your own ignorance. Enjoy it. They say it's bliss.
edit on 15-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 



9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.


More from the above


Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].


Video
Question 9
Missing transitional fossils

Very good points I must say.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 


I see, so you're quoting from Creation.com. That explains why you don't understand Evolution. Creation.com is not an unbiased source. And that quote from Stephen Jay Gould has often been used out of context. He believed in Evolution, it's just that he believed in a form called punctuated equilibrium.

EDIT: And here's a quote from Stephen Jay Gould - "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups." (SJG, The Panda's Thumb)
edit on 15-4-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Quote



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's exactly the same
.... Both are based off putting faith into another's work and learning from it. Religion cannot prove that an invisible space man is watching what we do and likewise evolution cannot prove that 2 different animals can come together to create 1 new animal. Both are based off faith because both cannot be physically observed regardless of anyone's views or opinions. We can assume through experiments but unless it happens before our very eyes, that's all we are doing in both cases.


Of course we can't prove that your idiotic and erroneous understanding of evolution is possible, or even probable, because it's idiotic and erroneous. You seem to be ignoring all the instances in which, within this very thread, you are told that's NOT how evolution works, and yet you continue to ask for examples and proof. Don't get all haughty and smug when we fail to provide any, because it's impossible and we've told you as much. If you want evidence supporting the ACTUAL process of evolution - as explained numerous times throughout this discussion, in contrast to your woefully lackadaisical grasp of the concept - then you can start right here, in this thread. We've provided plenty. The only obstacle is your unwillingness to let go of this despairingly inaccurate model you've constructed in your mind. What you understand as evolution, quite simply, is not evolution. There are only so many ways we can explain that very simple fact.

And again, I tell you: Wikipedia has quite the impressive collection of resources for anyone interested in educating themselves on the subject of evolution as defined and demonstrated by scientists and researchers around the world and throughout history. Fortunately, this does not include your definition as observed in this thread.
edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join