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.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 42
12
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Misspelled and written with a dry erase market to boot I'm sure!




posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

So you cut out the part of the post that ACTUALLY had links to evidence and how you could go about researching evolution only to tell me that I provided none. Quote bombing at its best. AND that's with my post two posts above yours where anyone can see that you did that. Well done sir. You make your fellow Creationists proud.

Like I said, you don't need us to learn about evolution. If you were truly looking for answers, you'd go research the information yourself and come to your own conclusions, but you are content to just stand back with a predetermined answer and hand wave away anyone's attempt to educate you. Which can be evidenced by this entire thread and all your posts in it.


I saw no evidence amd as I said before,do you want a links battle?
The rules are simple, you post a link (thats dubious as its made by evolutionists who derive their pay from selling a theory) and I rebut with a link from (thats dubious as its made by creationists who derive their pay from selling a faith).
Come on, how ho hum is that.

You cant answer the question, fine, say as much. Its fine i dont have all the answers either.
I simply dont want to read silly links that say silly things, things you believe by faith.
As I keep saying, over and over again. Science is repeatable observable and testable. Keeping up?

Me quote bombing, you, you are just link bombing, and you think your superior because you drop links everywhere.
Dubious links at best. Pitiful sadly. Your air of superiority is based on hypocrisy

Answer the question I posed.

I am figuring its to late now for a discussion, the threads been over run again by the same old, same old.
Sad really



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

They are two completely seperate processes and areas of study. Abiogenesis looks at how various chemical compounds can be stimulated to create organic matter. Its a valid hypothesis. The fact that we don't know all the specifics yet is why it is still a hypothesis, but the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and shows that the processes can yield biological results. In fact, one of the little known facts of the Miller-Urey experiment was that they produced in excess of 20 different amino acids during their fist experiment. Only 20 occur naturally. The process can work, has been tested and has been independently repeated. Argue all you like but the science is sound. Your inability to be able to seperate a chemical process from a biological one such as biological evolution is very telling, nearly as telling as the "tone" your posting now takes. Nobody knows where all the elements that make up the universe originate do they? This is a joke right? You've got to be trolling me because I know middle school students who can answer that with more confidence than your imaginary friend Jesus. Do you type this tripe with a straight face or are you drooling on yourself from laughing at your own punchline?

I tell you what, go piss into the wind. All the processes you demand answers to have been given repeatedly. If you're not willing to read through your own thread or accept the answers within, go get yourself a library card. Its not my job to hold your hand and explain multiple scientific disciplines, particularly those not within my purview. You're not interested in biological evolution? Boo hoo. That's the only kind on the table today. The actual scientific kind. I'm not playing an elementary school game of gotcha because you want to discuss what you think is evolution when you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about in the first place. This is overly tedious at this point. Go learn about what is taught as evolution and come back to discuss it before you try to ridicule something you don't understand. You're in way over your head and have no idea.

I've got work to do, enjoy your games and fairy tales and adulterated world view as you wander through threads redefining science to fit your game of the day. Sorry that nobody wants to play a game where the rules change to suit your every whim because you can't be bothered to understand the science. Or maybe you're just afraid of it because it threatens your paradigm? either way you haven't a clue and your argument, if you can call it that, has become so disheveled its not worth the effort to try to keep track of who you are today or which of your personal versions of evolution you think you're arguing against.


Well lets look at the Miller Uray experiment in detail, oh no, you best run along.

They lied and doctored their results, its common knowledge, want to?

Go believe your faith and do your work.
Sometimes its best to put down your sword and beat a hasty exit, wise move.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

They are two completely seperate processes and areas of study. Abiogenesis looks at how various chemical compounds can be stimulated to create organic matter. Its a valid hypothesis. The fact that we don't know all the specifics yet is why it is still a hypothesis, but the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and shows that the processes can yield biological results. In fact, one of the little known facts of the Miller-Urey experiment was that they produced in excess of 20 different amino acids during their fist experiment. Only 20 occur naturally. The process can work, has been tested and has been independently repeated. Argue all you like but the science is sound. Your inability to be able to seperate a chemical process from a biological one such as biological evolution is very telling, nearly as telling as the "tone" your posting now takes. Nobody knows where all the elements that make up the universe originate do they? This is a joke right? You've got to be trolling me because I know middle school students who can answer that with more confidence than your imaginary friend Jesus. Do you type this tripe with a straight face or are you drooling on yourself from laughing at your own punchline?

I tell you what, go piss into the wind. All the processes you demand answers to have been given repeatedly. If you're not willing to read through your own thread or accept the answers within, go get yourself a library card. Its not my job to hold your hand and explain multiple scientific disciplines, particularly those not within my purview. You're not interested in biological evolution? Boo hoo. That's the only kind on the table today. The actual scientific kind. I'm not playing an elementary school game of gotcha because you want to discuss what you think is evolution when you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about in the first place. This is overly tedious at this point. Go learn about what is taught as evolution and come back to discuss it before you try to ridicule something you don't understand. You're in way over your head and have no idea.

I've got work to do, enjoy your games and fairy tales and adulterated world view as you wander through threads redefining science to fit your game of the day. Sorry that nobody wants to play a game where the rules change to suit your every whim because you can't be bothered to understand the science. Or maybe you're just afraid of it because it threatens your paradigm? either way you haven't a clue and your argument, if you can call it that, has become so disheveled its not worth the effort to try to keep track of who you are today or which of your personal versions of evolution you think you're arguing against.


Well lets look at the Miller Uray experiment in detail, oh no, you best run along.

They lied and doctored their results, its common knowledge, want to?

Go believe your faith and do your work.
Sometimes its best to put down your sword and beat a hasty exit, wise move.


If they doctored the results you should be able to provide a citation. Where is it?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

None of those things are contingent on the other. I don't know why you keep insisting they are. That's like trying to argue that 1 doesn't equal 1 because 2 doesn't equal 2. There is just so much wrong with that argument.

Planets and stars don't produce energy... They just convert it. Aren't you aware of the Law of Conservation of Energy? Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It just changes form.

We don't know anything about the beginning of the universe. If you are referring to the Big Bang, that isn't the beginning of the universe. Before the Big Bang, there was the singularity which contained all of the universe condensed to a tiny point. That isn't nothing. That is everything!

How can you not get that that ISN'T the case. You are creating a strawman and arguing it until you are blue in the face despite us telling AND showing you OVER and OVER again that you are wrong.

Since I already did this earlier in the thread and you just ignored it then, I'd suggest that Peter not do that all since you will do the same thing to him.

This translates to, "Even though we aren't discussing this topic yet, I've already determined you are wrong despite anything you provide to the contrary when we do start discussing it."


Yes just like you have determined creation is wrong I have determined that evolution is absurd, I cant believe you have only just grasped that fact.

Now you say none of these things are contingent on the other, thats a valid point.
I disagree and I would like to see a scientific explanation as to why I should believe that belief you choose. Maybe I better sit at your feet and just accept your position, like all us good Christians do.
You know we are brainwashed by the church, we are not brain washed by you.
Now do you have an answer.

Planets dont produce energy as much as an engine doesnt produce energy, just think about it.
Stop and think, then reply.
I think you are just trying to point score, I hope thats not the case.

You have told me your faith and I dont accept it, you have shown dubious links and possibly something relevant that was lost in all the drivel here.
You know what science is, repeatable observable and testable outcomes. I have seen nothing.
Miller and Uray, contemptible at the very least.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

You know what science is, repeatable observable and testable outcomes. I have seen nothing.
Miller and Uray, contemptible at the very least.


Then back up the bluster and bravado with information and citations. Simply mocking the experiment while Misspelling a name doesn't lend much credence to your case while you laughably mock it. Put your money,where your mouth is. You keep calling people out and making demands of them and ascribing standards which you don't follow yourself. Hypocrisy at its finest.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I saw no evidence amd as I said before,do you want a links battle?
The rules are simple, you post a link (thats dubious as its made by evolutionists who derive their pay from selling a theory) and I rebut with a link from (thats dubious as its made by creationists who derive their pay from selling a faith).
Come on, how ho hum is that.


Dubious links? The link I provided was a Google scholar search result for evidence of evolution. It literally returned 1 million different scientific articles published in peer reviewed journals for evolution. That is literally as close to the best evidence I could provide. I didn't give you a link to articles that explain evolution. I linked you to the horse's mouth. That would be like you quoting from the bible as your evidence. If you can't trust peer reviewed sources then you are hopeless. Your mind is completely closed.


You cant answer the question, fine, say as much. Its fine i dont have all the answers either.
I simply dont want to read silly links that say silly things, things you believe by faith.
As I keep saying, over and over again. Science is repeatable observable and testable. Keeping up?


Oh I'm keeping up all right. You are just saying a bunch of nonsense that you think sounds good, but is completely ludicrous since that isn't how things work.


Me quote bombing, you, you are just link bombing, and you think your superior because you drop links everywhere.
Dubious links at best. Pitiful sadly. Your air of superiority is based on hypocrisy


Links = evidence. Sorry, but on the internet you and I have zero credibility. I can type all day and explain intricately how any of the processes in the OP are actually described and theorized about (which you'll ignore and hand wave away anyways probably by saying I didn't provide evidence to back it up with), but links to scholarly articles is the best kind of evidence I can provide. That is what the scientists are ACTUALLY saying, not what you think they are saying.


Answer the question I posed.


You have no questions, only fallacies.


I am figuring its to late now for a discussion, the threads been over run again by the same old, same old.
Sad really


Yes same old same old, fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. Same as any Creationist thread on Evolution.
edit on 12-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar


Well lets look at the Miller Uray experiment in detail, oh no, you best run along.

They lied and doctored their results, its common knowledge, want to?


If they doctored the results you should be able to provide a citation. Where is it?

No I dont have to provide a citation, thats ridiculous.

but lets be honest shall we.

There is no citation because the experiment has never been questioned by anyone, ever.....its written in stone and is accepted as fact, nobody can argue fact from pure faith and fiction.
Seriously, the experiment believes that they knew the earths conditions when amino acids formed, Yeah Right, good luck with that. But please believe away.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Yes just like you have determined creation is wrong I have determined that evolution is absurd, I cant believe you have only just grasped that fact.


I haven't only just now grasped that fact. I've known it throughout our discussions throughout this thread. I've known it since you wrote that god AWFUL op that is just a Gish Gallop of strawman arguments. And actually you are wrong about my opinion on Creationism. I don't disbelieve in a creator. I just say that I don't know if one exists. Evolution (as well as the other universal processes you brought up in your OP since they aren't related) and god could possibly coexist. Though apparently that is outside your world view.

See the difference between you and I, is that -I- will change my beliefs as new evidence comes to light that paints a different picture. If you want me to believe in creationism, show me evidence outside your bible that this is true. The bible is just one source and you can't say something is true off of just one piece of evidence (especially a book of testimonials). But until you do produce the evidence, I will just say that I don't know in regards to that. You on the other hand have a confirmation bias thanks to being brainwashed that the bible is true and immediately disbelieve anything that conflicts with this.


Now you say none of these things are contingent on the other, thats a valid point.
I disagree and I would like to see a scientific explanation as to why I should believe that belief you choose. Maybe I better sit at your feet and just accept your position, like all us good Christians do.
You know we are brainwashed by the church, we are not brain washed by you.
Now do you have an answer.


I did do that, but you just accused me of link bombing. Then when I give you my personal explanation, you disregard it. You criteria for acceptance of evidence is absurd and all over the map. But hey, at least you admitted you are brainwashed.


Planets dont produce energy as much as an engine doesnt produce energy, just think about it.
Stop and think, then reply.
I think you are just trying to point score, I hope thats not the case.


I don't have to think about that because I thoroughly understand the Law of Conservation of Energy. I understand that a sun or an engine converts potential energy into kinetic energy through the application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is even a formula you can use to figure it out (thanks to the fact that it is a scientific law and is therefore exact).


You have told me your faith and I dont accept it, you have shown dubious links and possibly something relevant that was lost in all the drivel here.


Just out of curiosity, define a "non-dubious" link. Also why don't you accept agnosticism (my faith)? What is wrong with the reasoning that if you don't have enough evidence to answer a question, you just say that you don't know the answer?


You know what science is, repeatable observable and testable outcomes. I have seen nothing.
Miller and Uray, contemptible at the very least.


But Miller-Ulrey IS repeatable, observable, and testable. All of those things have been done... So you are lying in the face of reality here.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
I saw no evidence amd as I said before,do you want a links battle?
The rules are simple, you post a link (thats dubious as its made by evolutionists who derive their pay from selling a theory) and I rebut with a link from (thats dubious as its made by creationists who derive their pay from selling a faith).
Come on, how ho hum is that.


Dubious links? The link I provided was a Google scholar search result for evidence of evolution. It literally returned 1 million different scientific articles published in peer reviewed journals for evolution. That is literally as close to the best evidence I could provide. I didn't give you a link to articles that explain evolution. I linked you to the horse's mouth. If you can't trust peer reviewed sources then you are hopeless. Your mind is completely closed.


You cant answer the question, fine, say as much. Its fine i dont have all the answers either.
I simply dont want to read silly links that say silly things, things you believe by faith.
As I keep saying, over and over again. Science is repeatable observable and testable. Keeping up?


Oh I'm keeping up all right. You are just saying a bunch of nonsense that you think sounds good, but is completely ludicrous since that isn't how things work.


Me quote bombing, you, you are just link bombing, and you think your superior because you drop links everywhere.
Dubious links at best. Pitiful sadly. Your air of superiority is based on hypocrisy


Links = evidence. Sorry, but on the internet you and I have zero credibility. I can type all day and explain intricately how any of the processes in the OP are actually described and theorized about (which you'll ignore and hand wave away anyways probably by saying I didn't provide evidence to back it up with), but links to scholarly articles is the best kind of evidence I can provide. That is what the scientists are ACTUALLY saying, not what you think they are saying.


Answer the question I posed.


You have no questions, only fallacies.


I am figuring its to late now for a discussion, the threads been over run again by the same old, same old.
Sad really


Yes same old same old, fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. Same as any Creationist thread on Evolution.


You have no credibility and by the looks of it will never have any.
Imagine all the stars you would earn, the honour and fame if you were to convert a creationist to evolution.

Same old, same old.
You say my statements are nonsense, thats fine I accept and understand that. I am giving you an option to establish some credibility, you wont get ant offering dubious links.

I dont trust your peer reviewed links, MSM of the science faculty in my opinion, you are welcome to accept it, dont put your faith views on me


I would imagine you dont trust God, Jesus or anything i accept. My imaginery sky fairies if you like.
Well your links are that to me

Catching up yet


Your sky fairies need repeatable observable and testable evidence, k?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

See the difference between you and I, is that -I- will change my beliefs as new evidence comes to light that paints a different picture. If you want me to believe in creationism, show me evidence outside your bible that this is true. The bible is just one source and you can't say something is true off of just one piece of evidence (especially a book of testimonials). But until you do produce the evidence, I will just say that I don't know in regards to that. You on the other hand have a confirmation bias thanks to being brainwashed that the bible is true and immediately disbelieve anything that conflicts with this.



Funny that
I have a lot of Christian friends, heads of departments, biologists, blah blah.
Strangely enough many of them are intelligent design, God allowed evolution, just steered it, believers.
I am cool with that, thats great and they are Christian, yet if the issue is ever brought up they remain fairly coy.

Now if I could find the evidence that won them over, see the light of billion years past, I could live with that, comfortably.

So while you are strutting your stuff, selling the formaldehyde and cyanide theory like a rooster (I was going to say cock, but best not, just in case) on a walk.
I am actually interested in finding answers. Not that I believe there is any.

Barring that, just trying to show that I can accept your view and your choice, just disagree with it



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Also why don't you accept agnosticism (my faith)? What is wrong with the reasoning that if you don't have enough evidence to answer a question, you just say that you don't know the answer?



I do accept agnosticism, appreciate it even,I think its a fair and honest position to take, lazy position, but honest.

I prefer agnostics and atheists to wishywashy Christians, no lie.

Now you say that if you dont have enough evidence why not say you dont know the answer, fair question, fair answer.

But its a bit like being an agnostic, its lazy, lazy in such a way that the average agnostic says I dont know and then leaves it.

My God says
Proverbs 2:1-22 ESV
My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.

We are to search Him out as a treasure.
Agnostics, well, they sorta dont do that, like many Christians.


The funny thing with searching links is that any creationist link, to a evolutionist is evil, well I just say the same thing to an evolutionist about evolutionist links, for the same reason. I dont accept that evolutionist slanted links are valid any more than an evolutionist would accept a creationist link.

It infuriates evolutionists and frustrates them, they accuse me of myopia, funny they do the same thing from their end to my links, they just demand I accept their links.

You show me a creationist link that validates the Uray Miller experiment. I dont listen to MSM science, dont have to.

You wont play on a level playing field.
You want it all your way.

Use creationist links, that will earn you the points

edit on b2014Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:34:02 -050093020145am302014-09-12T09:34:02-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
You have no credibility and by the looks of it will never have any.
Imagine all the stars you would earn, the honour and fame if you were to convert a creationist to evolution.


Never claimed to have any credibility. I understand this is the internet and participation in it means you have no credibility. If you want to build it or establish trustworthiness then you provide evidence to back up your claims, hence my tendency to use links. Duh.

Also, who cares about stars? I care about providing a cognitive argument that is logical, sound, and not fallacious. Those criteria happen to be good criteria for getting many stars so I can see where you would think that correlation equals causation there, but it doesn't (and that is a fallacious claim anyways).

In order to convert a creationist to evolution, I'd have to first get the creationist to stop being so stubborn with his fallacies and actually open up and study the opposing argument instead of just substituting his own version of it. But of course you've told me that peer reviewed journals are dubious links (LOL!!!!) so you aren't going to do that. Let alone switching from creationism to evolution.


Same old, same old.
You say my statements are nonsense, thats fine I accept and understand that. I am giving you an option to establish some credibility, you wont get ant offering dubious links.


Then how pray-tell am I going to establish credibility in your book? I'd really like to know because so far it looks like anything short of outright agreeing with you gets waved away as a non-argument by you.


I dont trust your peer reviewed links, MSM of the science faculty in my opinion, you are welcome to accept it, dont put your faith views on me


Trust or not of peer review is irrelevant (though not to trust peer review is pretty foolish, but whatever). You keep asking for evidence that all the processes in the op that are theorized about by scientists are related. Well peer review journals are EXACTLY what scientists are saying. So regardless if you trust it or not, it is the evidence that you are wrong, have created a strawman with your op, and those theories can all stand independent of each other. Yet you refuse to even acknowledge this. I guess you get to decide what scientists are saying and not the scientists themselves *eye roll*.


I would imagine you dont trust God, Jesus or anything i accept. My imaginery sky fairies if you like.
Well your links are that to me

Catching up yet


Oh I've already caught up. I've told you already that I know and understand you are brainwashed and close minded. But if by "catching up yet," you are actually saying, "stop debating me, I'm a brick wall," then maybe I haven't gotten to that point yet. But I'm close.


Your sky fairies need repeatable observable and testable evidence, k?


They have that. You just deny it exists, but saying that is the case doesn't make it true. It just makes you look foolish.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I do accept agnosticism, appreciate it even,I think its a fair and honest position to take, lazy position, but honest.


Lazy? Why? It's the belief that makes the least amount of assumptions. So I'd say it's the most accurate and fluid belief system possible.


I prefer agnostics and atheists to wishywashy Christians, no lie.

Now you say that if you dont have enough evidence why not say you dont know the answer, fair question, fair answer.

But its a bit like being an agnostic, its lazy, lazy in such a way that the average agnostic says I dont know and then leaves it.

My God says
Proverbs 2:1-22 ESV
My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.

We are to search Him out as a treasure.
Agnostics, well, they sorta dont do that, like many Christians.


We don't. How can you say what we do and don't do? You know nothing about what I research and don't research and you certainly cannot speak for any other agnostics. I've looked for god and found nothing. I will continue to look for god, probably for the rest of my life, but in all honesty I think that my answer will continue to go unfulfilled there. God, the afterlife, and all that jazz sounds wonderful and just great. But believing something is true because it sounds good, doesn't make it so.

Oh by the way, after looking at most religions objectively as an outsider, I'd say that Buddhism makes the most sense. Reincarnation alone makes more sense then the Christian idea of getting ~70 years (out of the billions of years the universe has been here) to achieve and fulfill the vague rules (that at times contradict each other) and guidelines for the entry fee for heaven, otherwise you are locked out or, worse, burn forever. That just sounds awful. Reincarnation on the other hand gives everyone many tries to get it right, everyone can go at their own pace (since we all learn at different speeds), and no one is excluded from paradise. Both Buddhism and Christianity have the same amount of evidence for them (none), so I'd side with the one that doesn't mistreat its believers (or non-believers).


The funny thing with searching links is that any creationist link to a evolutionist is evil, well I just say the same thing to an evolutionist, for the same reason. I dont accept that they are valid anymore.


That's because you don't understand science and the scientific method. Creationist websites are considered bunk because they use logical fallacies (something you are good at), mainly the strawman argument, to represent and "debunk" evolution. Evolution websites on the other hand, source peer review journals and educate people with EXACTLY what the scientists are saying and claiming while showing why they are saying that. There is a BIG difference between the two and the fact that you are trying to compare the two like they are even CLOSE to similar events is very telling of your understanding of how science works (ie: close to 0). Also peer review journals are a primary source and creationist websites are a secondary source (at best).


It infuriates them and frustrates them, they accuse me of myopia, funny they do the same thing from their end to my links, they just demand I accept.


Yes arguing with a brick wall is pretty frustrating.


You show me a creationist link that validates the Uray Miller experiment. I dont listen to MSM science, dont have to.


You are hopeless...


You wont play on a level playing field.
You want it all your way.


No, I WANT you to follow the traditional rules of debate and logic and stop using logical fallacies. Then pretending like you have a valid point because of said fallacies.


Use creationist links, that will earn you the points


So in other words, you want me to find a religious website that says that evolution (or any other process in the OP) is true? You do know that if I do that, that website will source peer reviewed journals correct? They'll just put a slight Christian spin on it (that all these processes had a guiding hand). In fact, you are asking me to produce a secondary source and claiming that it is more credible than a primary source, which is just insane.
edit on 12-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
You have no credibility and by the looks of it will never have any.
Imagine all the stars you would earn, the honour and fame if you were to convert a creationist to evolution.


Never claimed to have any credibility. I understand this is the internet and participation in it means you have no credibility. If you want to build it or establish trustworthiness then you provide evidence to back up your claims, hence my tendency to use links. Duh.

Also, who cares about stars? I care about providing a cognitive argument that is logical, sound, and not fallacious. Those criteria happen to be good criteria for getting many stars so I can see where you would think that correlation equals causation there, but it doesn't (and that is a fallacious claim anyways).

In order to convert a creationist to evolution, I'd have to first get the creationist to stop being so stubborn with his fallacies and actually open up and study the opposing argument instead of just substituting his own version of it. But of course you've told me that peer reviewed journals are dubious links (LOL!!!!) so you aren't going to do that. Let alone switching from creationism to evolution.


Same old, same old.
You say my statements are nonsense, thats fine I accept and understand that. I am giving you an option to establish some credibility, you wont get ant offering dubious links.


Then how pray-tell am I going to establish credibility in your book? I'd really like to know because so far it looks like anything short of outright agreeing with you gets waved away as a non-argument by you.


I dont trust your peer reviewed links, MSM of the science faculty in my opinion, you are welcome to accept it, dont put your faith views on me


Trust or not of peer review is irrelevant (though not to trust peer review is pretty foolish, but whatever). You keep asking for evidence that all the processes in the op that are theorized about by scientists are related. Well peer review journals are EXACTLY what scientists are saying. So regardless if you trust it or not, it is the evidence that you are wrong, have created a strawman with your op, and those theories can all stand independent of each other. Yet you refuse to even acknowledge this. I guess you get to decide what scientists are saying and not the scientists themselves *eye roll*.


I would imagine you dont trust God, Jesus or anything i accept. My imaginery sky fairies if you like.
Well your links are that to me

Catching up yet


Oh I've already caught up. I've told you already that I know and understand you are brainwashed and close minded. But if by "catching up yet," you are actually saying, "stop debating me, I'm a brick wall," then maybe I haven't gotten to that point yet. But I'm close.


Your sky fairies need repeatable observable and testable evidence, k?


They have that. You just deny it exists, but saying that is the case doesn't make it true. It just makes you look foolish.


Any one who attacks creationist gets stars, no matter how stupid the comments

Now I dont care what scientists are saying, please understand that simple statement.
Scientists opinions are irrelevant in my view relating to my issue.

Its my position and its my understanding, get it.
if you dont get it, cant understand it, wont accept it, then good, dont bother, scoot, go, its not a question aimed at you. Be off.
Me, myself, personally, I, get it yet, I see it as linked.
Stuff the scientists and their beliefs, irrelevant, useless, pointless, I am not one of them, they are irrelevant.

Its MY POSITION and view, Its not a scientist asking for an answer, by all means use science to answer my question, just dont deny my question.
ITS NOT AN ANSWER
If my question is why is the sky purple, would you say, "the sky is blue". Thats not an answer, thats a statement.
You would at least clarify the question.
"Are you colour blind?" Is a clarification question leading to an answer
"Its not purple its blue, maybe you have tinted lenses", is an answer

or
A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look towards the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colours because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.

Or maybe if you looked up, looked in to the sky, by some odd chance what if it was purple

See my question assumes its all linked, your answer says its not, thats not an answer, that answers nothing.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
I do accept agnosticism, appreciate it even,I think its a fair and honest position to take, lazy position, but honest.


Lazy? Why? It's the belief that makes the least amount of assumptions. So I'd say it's the most accurate and fluid belief system possible.


I prefer agnostics and atheists to wishywashy Christians, no lie.

Now you say that if you dont have enough evidence why not say you dont know the answer, fair question, fair answer.

But its a bit like being an agnostic, its lazy, lazy in such a way that the average agnostic says I dont know and then leaves it.

My God says
Proverbs 2:1-22 ESV
My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.

We are to search Him out as a treasure.
Agnostics, well, they sorta dont do that, like many Christians.


We don't? How can you say what we do and don't do? You know nothing about what I research and don't research and you certainly cannot speak for any other agnostics. I've looked for god and found nothing. I will continue to look for god, probably for the rest of my life, but in all honesty I think that my answer will continue to go unfulfilled there. God, the afterlife, and all that jazz sounds wonderful and just great. But believing something is true because it sounds good, doesn't make it so.

Oh by the way, after looking at most religions objectively as an outsider, I'd say that Buddhism makes the most sense. Reincarnation alone makes more sense then the Christian idea of getting ~70 years (out of the billions of years the universe has been here) to achieve and fulfill the vague rules (that at times contradict each other) and guidelines for the entry fee for heaven, otherwise you are locked out or, worse, burn forever. That just sounds awful. Reincarnation on the other hand gives everyone many tries to get it right, everyone can go at their own pace (since we all learn at different speeds), and no one is excluded from paradise.


The funny thing with searching links is that any creationist link to a evolutionist is evil, well I just say the same thing to an evolutionist, for the same reason. I dont accept that they are valid anymore.


That's because you don't understand science and the scientific method. Creationist websites are considered bunk because they use logical fallacies (something you are good at), mainly the strawman argument, to represent and "debunk" evolution. Evolution websites on the other hand, source peer review journals and educate people with EXACTLY what the scientists are saying and claiming while showing why they are saying that. There is a BIG difference between the two and the fact that you are trying to compare the two like they are even CLOSE to similar events is very telling of your understanding of how science works (ie: close to 0).


It infuriates them and frustrates them, they accuse me of myopia, funny they do the same thing from their end to my links, they just demand I accept.


Yes arguing with a brick wall is pretty frustrating.


You show me a creationist link that validates the Uray Miller experiment. I dont listen to MSM science, dont have to.


You are hopeless...


You wont play on a level playing field.
You want it all your way.


No, I WANT you to follow the traditional rules of debate and logic and stop using logical fallacies. Then pretending like you have a valid point because of said fallacies.


Use creationist links, that will earn you the points


So in other words, you want me to find a religious website that says that evolution (or any other process in the OP) is true? You do know that if I do that, that website will source peer reviewed journals correct? They'll just put a slight Christian spin on it (that all these processes had a guiding hand). In fact, you are asking me to produce a secondary source and claiming that it is more credible than a primary source, which is just insane.


Yes arguing with a brick wall is pretty frustrating

Its not my business what you do. You are welcome to leave.
edit on b2014Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:56:47 -050093020145am302014-09-12T09:56:47-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Any one who attacks creationist gets stars, no matter how stupid the comments


So? I still don't care. I told you my goals when I construct a post. Again correlation doesn't equal causation.


Now I dont care what scientists are saying, please understand that simple statement.
Scientists opinions are irrelevant in my view relating to my issue.


Then you are lost since they are the primary sources for humanity's current understanding of evolution. I see that it is irrelevant to you, but that makes you foolish, not correct.


Its my position and its my understanding, get it.


Got it. You don't care about denying ignorance and have embraced it like a warm blanket.


if you dont get it, cant understand it, wont accept it, then good, dont bother, scoot, go, its not a question aimed at you. Be off.
Me, myself, personally, I, get it yet, I see it as linked.
Stuff the scientists and their beliefs, irrelevant, useless, pointless, I am not one of them, they are irrelevant.


Translation: "I've closed my mind."


Its MY POSITION and view, Its not a scientist asking for an answer, by all means use science to answer my question, just dont deny my question.


You don't know what you are asking here.


ITS NOT AN ANSWER
If my question is why is the sky purple, would you say, "the sky is blue". Thats not an answer, thats a statement.
You would at least clarify the question.
"Are you colour blind?" Is a clarification question leading to an answer
"Its not purple its blue, maybe you have tinted lenses", is an answer


Except in order to provide the answer to that question, I first have to reference a scientist who studied and figured out the answer to that question. You know the people that you are claiming are irrelevant to the discussion.


or
A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look towards the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colours because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.


So tell me how we (humans) know that answer. Don't bother, I'll answer for you. Scientists studied it and figured it out. JUST like evolution.


Or maybe if you looked up, looked in to the sky, by some odd chance what if it was purple

See my question assumes its all linked, your answer says its not, thats not an answer, that answers nothing.


The bolded part is where you went wrong. Questions aren't supposed to assume anything. If you want the true answer to a question, you ask it without any assumptions. By putting assumptions in your questions, you get the wrong answers.
edit on 12-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

That's a crock of poo. It is in no way written in stone and there have been multiple criticisms of it in the past 60 years. There have also been other people who have replicated the experiment under differing conditions and again, the basic building blocks of life were formed. what this shows is that earth isn't really that special and that differing types of life can form in different types of atmospheric conditions. Once again, you show that you're operating on assumption alone and can't be bothered to do even the most basic research. And you DO have to provide a citation to support YOUR claim. That's how this works. But its easier to dance and sway while ignoring facts in favor of continuously mocking people in an ignorant fashion.

Even if there were no criticisms of it in the past, someone of your vast intellect should be able to discuss such a simple experiment and explain why its wrong and the conclusions are false, but why do that when you can just claim thy falsified data, tuck your sack back and throw your hands in the air defiantly. Nice work chief.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I already answered your concerns directly with links to verify each one aside from abiogenesis as did many others. You dismissed every point without a rebuttal and did not address any of the evidence, you flat out denied it. Go re-read YOUR thread. You aren't explaining what you mean by evolution and you haven't discredited ANY of it. Your thread is based on a faulty premise. Those things are not forms of evolution and the fact that you refuse to even say what definition you are using for the word evolution speaks volumes. You are using Kent Hovind arguments, and even if you could disprove all "forms of evolution" except biological, it still does not disprove biological evolution (which is your end game) because they have nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately for you, biological evolution is backed by substantially more evidence than the rest, regardless, so your attempt to discredit science by equivocating layman's terms with scientific ones is a complete failure. If I'm wrong, then surely you have evidence of an alternative to evolution or any of those separate scientific studies that doesn't include multiple fallacies and assumptions. I'm not wasting my time again. I already addressed your OP directly in this thread. You didn't like the explanation but had no evidence to suggest I was wrong, the science I quoted is wrong, or that your hypothesis of god is right.

Why are you afraid to explain what definition you are using for evolution? I know why and so does every other rational person in this thread. Your argument will collapse completely (even though it already has because you won't back up anything you assume). Just stating arbitrarily that the Miller Urey experiment is a lie with zero evidence whatsoever to back up that claim is absurd. Do you say the same for gravity experiments, round earth evidence, or atomic theory? Didn't think so. You have a clear agenda against evolution, and are essentially just preaching.
edit on 12-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: borntowatch


Why are you afraid to explain what definition you are using for evolution? I know why and so does every other rational person in this thread. Your argument will collapse completely (even though it already has because you won't back up anything you assume). Just stating arbitrarily that the Miller Urey experiment is a lie with zero evidence whatsoever to back up that claim is absurd. Do you say the same for gravity experiments, round earth evidence, or atomic theory? Didn't think so. You have a clear agenda against evolution, and are essentially just preaching.


How about I just get a random bunch of links together and show them to everyone

Then all of a sudden I win the argument

How about I throw a few lego blocks on the floor and say look I created something

You are absurd, you cling to nothing because you have nothing.

Your Miller Uray experiment, done under dubious conditions proved nothing at all. Your god of the gaps science has shown nothing. "We have building blocks and then billions of years latter we have life, thats the proof"
Its not proof, its piffle.

You say I closed my mind, thats right.
Because you cant answer the question, you call me a fool, yet you clearly cant explain something so basic as evolution.
You cant explain what was dubious about the Miller Uray experiment.
You cant face the truth and see the issues evolution faces and you call me a fool.
The funniest thing is the more you deny a reasonable accurate response, the harder you push your lie, the more you preach your faith at me, the more I become obstinate towards your faith.

Heres a link explaining the problems with the Miller Uray theory, yes its a Christian creation site so I know you wont go there.
creation.com...
Now for the very reason you wont go to a creation site, I refuse to look at a secular site.

Dont link secular sites, I dont validate them, just like you dont validate Christian sites.

If this is to hard for you, you are welcome to leave.




top topics



 
12
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join