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: 48
12
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer



First of all, the earth is only 6,000 years old so phooey to all that "50 million, 30 million, 20 million" nonsense.

Secondly, it's obvious that the different elephant bones are proof that god couldn't make up his mind about the final design so he kept changing it. I mean, duh.

Once he came up with the elephant we all know and love, he said "ok, that one's just right" and tossed all the other ones into various layers of the earth's surface to confuse scientists so they'd look super stupid to us creationists.


Really, you want to post for me, isnt that a little presumptuous, a little arrogant, maybe a little rude.
Seriously you want to be that type of person, evidently

How about I post what I think you would say
Along the lines of how .......
No I wont become you



thats basically what creationists ARE saying though. they just like to dress it up in pretty bows and glitter before delivering it. i hope you'll forgive mr answer for skipping that step.


It is really incredibly sad that you dont understand the creationist argument, no idea at all.
I mean any educated person is first taught to understand the opposing views, then consider it and find issues that can be tested.

There is no science in these arguments that is pertinent, just silly comments about what you postulate the opposing position believes

Evolution is the painted pig that scientists date, it has no repeatable testable observable data, yet you are in love.




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer



First of all, the earth is only 6,000 years old so phooey to all that "50 million, 30 million, 20 million" nonsense.

Secondly, it's obvious that the different elephant bones are proof that god couldn't make up his mind about the final design so he kept changing it. I mean, duh.

Once he came up with the elephant we all know and love, he said "ok, that one's just right" and tossed all the other ones into various layers of the earth's surface to confuse scientists so they'd look super stupid to us creationists.


Really, you want to post for me, isnt that a little presumptuous, a little arrogant, maybe a little rude.
Seriously you want to be that type of person, evidently

How about I post what I think you would say
Along the lines of how .......
No I wont become you



thats basically what creationists ARE saying though. they just like to dress it up in pretty bows and glitter before delivering it. i hope you'll forgive mr answer for skipping that step.


It is really incredibly sad that you dont understand the creationist argument, no idea at all.
I mean any educated person is first taught to understand the opposing views, then consider it and find issues that can be tested.

There is no science in these arguments that is pertinent, just silly comments about what you postulate the opposing position believes

Evolution is the painted pig that scientists date, it has no repeatable testable observable data, yet you are in love.



(Facepalm) Oh please, tell me that you're serious and not pulling our legs?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

(Facepalm) Oh please, tell me that you're serious and not pulling our legs?


i could do a facepalm thing but

I am not calling my belief a science, know its not repeatable observable and testable.

The onus is not on me to prove anything, I am not using science, science by its very definition is data. Just show me the data



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Reproducible, observable, and testable... evolution is all of those things. You should familiarize yourself with what you're trying to argue against before saying things like that. You only hurt your own credibility.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

(Facepalm) Oh please, tell me that you're serious and not pulling our legs?


i could do a facepalm thing but

I am not calling my belief a science, know its not repeatable observable and testable.

The onus is not on me to prove anything, I am not using science, science by its very definition is data. Just show me the data


This whole conversation just shows me that you really don't understand science at all. It also reminds me of this little faceplant.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

i have no idea who you are.... but you have many enemies on here. lol. i believe in a "god/intelligent universe/karma/natural law/etc. but i believe religion of any sort is the scourge of the earth, as it gave rise to the state and all other of man-kinds ills. but there must be some truth to what you are saying to cause such blowback. i have two degrees in psychology, and am preparing to start on a bachelors in organic chemistry, i have heard these terms used, and in the exact same syntax for ALL of these types of evolution in the university community...... keep up the good work.
edit on 1-2-2015 by fixitwcw because: abc



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: borntowatch

but there must be some truth to what you are saying to cause such blowback.


You would have to be utterly deluded to believe that. borntowatch routinely ignores scientific evidence and constructs fallacy-ridden arguments because he chooses to take the story of Genesis at face value.

But no, the routine demolishing of his, erm, "arguments" is clearly evidence that he is speaking truth. Right.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

he was right about those terms being acceptable. which is what i said, and stand by, while you thrash about. disgusting.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: GetHyped

he was right about those terms being acceptable. which is what i said, and stand by, while you thrash about. disgusting.


Two psychology degrees and you think that a person making demonstrably false claims MUST have some truth behind them?

Hmm

And if you're intending on beginning a bachelors in organic chemistry, I would advise that you learn the basics first.

Hint: there's only one 'type' of evolution...



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: fixitwcw

What? His understanding of evolution and the scientific method is non-existent. You must be as deluded as him to think otherwise. Get over your persecution complex and actually read up on such topics before chiming in to defend a serial science denier.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: borntowatch

i have no idea who you are.... but you have many enemies on here. lol. i believe in a "god/intelligent universe/karma/natural law/etc. but i believe religion of any sort is the scourge of the earth, as it gave rise to the state and all other of man-kinds ills. but there must be some truth to what you are saying to cause such blowback. i have two degrees in psychology, and am preparing to start on a bachelors in organic chemistry, i have heard these terms used, and in the exact same syntax for ALL of these types of evolution in the university community...... keep up the good work.


Psychology is fine. Organic chemistry? I don't think so. I suggest you consult your curriculum advisor.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: fixitwcw
i have heard these terms used, and in the exact same syntax for ALL of these types of evolution in the university community...... keep up the good work.


The problem is that he is using the layman's term "evolution" rather than the scientific term, and using it to argue against the biological definition of evolution. It is equivocation at it's finest.

Biological evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. This is the definition that folks are defending and the only one.

Now, evolution can also mean anything that changes over time, even an understanding. That is the term invoked for "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution", "organic evolution" and "stellar evolution". Those aren't forms of genetic mutations sorted by natural selection so that makes his argument 100% invalid.

Plus there's the fact that macro and micro evolution utilize the exact same mechanism, and in reality are no different, while each of those other processes are night and day in comparison. So unless he is attempting to debunk the layman's term for change over time (which is impossible because virtually everything changes over time), he's got no argument, since he refuses to address the actual evidence behind biological evolution.
edit on 1-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
All your science and logic is wrapped up in a few tardy little links that you provide.
I have asked you explain evolution and YOU cant.
You expect me to open them and read them and fall in to line and march along.
Evolution and its practitioners remind me of buddhists chanting their mantras.
If evolution is so well established why all the effort still, if its proven like gravity why all the theory still being thrown up, why all the study.

You only have links and you expect me to read them and become a drone like you. Doesnt work that way.

Now players, I am not asking for links, I am asking for reasoned logical discussion.
I have noticed you cant provide that, guessing you are all just a little to shallow minded in your theory to back up your angry attitudes.

See I believe that atheist evolution links have no valid science, just assumption.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
Or you can just walk away and accept I have a different opinion.
I guess that cant happen, you hate others believing something you dont accept, sheer minded bloody fundamentalists is all that is left.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
You only have links and you expect me to read them


No, we don't expect that at all.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

All your science and logic is wrapped up in a few tardy little links that you provide.
I have asked you explain evolution and YOU cant.
You expect me to open them and read them and fall in to line and march along.
Evolution and its practitioners remind me of buddhists chanting their mantras.
If evolution is so well established why all the effort still, if its proven like gravity why all the theory still being thrown up, why all the study.

You only have links and you expect me to read them and become a drone like you. Doesnt work that way.

Now players, I am not asking for links, I am asking for reasoned logical discussion.
I have noticed you cant provide that, guessing you are all just a little to shallow minded in your theory to back up your angry attitudes.

See I believe that atheist evolution links have no valid science, just assumption.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
Or you can just walk away and accept I have a different opinion.
I guess that cant happen, you hate others believing something you dont accept, sheer minded bloody fundamentalists is all that is left.


You want proof? Here it is. This is called "hard evidence" - evidence that can be replicated by any scientist. Genomic sequences don't lie.

Abstract
The hypothesis that the relatively large and complex vertebrate genome was created by two ancient, whole genome duplications has been hotly debated, but remains unresolved. We reconstructed the evolutionary relationships of all gene families from the complete gene sets of a tunicate, fish, mouse, and human, and then determined when each gene duplicated relative to the evolutionary tree of the organisms. We confirmed the results of earlier studies that there remains little signal of these events in numbers of duplicated genes, gene tree topology, or the number of genes per multigene family. However, when we plotted the genomic map positions of only the subset of paralogous genes that were duplicated prior to the fish–tetrapod split, their global physical organization provides unmistakable evidence of two distinct genome duplication events early in vertebrate evolution indicated by clear patterns of four-way paralogous regions covering a large part of the human genome. Our results highlight the potential for these large-scale genomic events to have driven the evolutionary success of the vertebrate lineage.

journals.plos.org.../journal.pbio.0030314



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

The theory of planetary evolution
www.umich.edu...

The theory of Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

I will stop there

So as you can see, these theorys are labelled as evolution, so when I say i dont believe in evolution I am not just talking about biological evolution.
Understand


Well said.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Here is a list of 51 reference which represents a wide variety of HARD research that supports evolution. Now, it's up to YOU to prove that they're all wrong.

References
1. Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 160 p.

2. Lander ES,Linton LM,Birren B,Nusbaum C,Zody MC,et al. (2001) Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409: 860–921. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

3. Venter JC,Adams MD,Myers EW,Li PW,Mural RJ,et al. (2001) The sequence of the human genome. Science 291: 1304–1351. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

4. Lundin LG (1993) Evolution of the vertebrate genome as reflected in paralogous chromosomal regions in man and the house mouse. Genomics 16: 1–19. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

5. Meyer A,Schartl M (1999) Gene and genome duplications in vertebrates: the one-to-four (-to-eight in fish) rule and the evolution of novel gene functions. Curr Opin Cell Biol 11: 699–704. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

6. Spring J (1997) Vertebrate evolution by interspecific hybridization—are we polyploid? FEBS Lett 400: 2–8. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

7. Wang Y,Gu X (2000) Evolutionary patterns of gene families generated in the early stage of vertebrates. J Mol Evol 51: 88–96. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

8. Larhammar D,Lundin LG,Hallbook F (2002) The human Hox-bearing chromosome regions did arise by block or chromosome (or even genome) duplications. Genome Res 12: 1910–1920. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

9. Guigo R,Muchnik I,Smith TF (1996) Reconstruction of ancient molecular phylogeny. Mol Phylogenet Evol 6: 189–213. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

10. McLysaght A,Hokamp K,Wolfe KH (2002) Extensive genomic duplication during early chordate evolution. Nat Genet 31: 200–204. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

11. Gu X,Wang Y,Gu J (2002) Age distribution of human gene families shows significant roles of both large- and small-scale duplications in vertebrate evolution. Nat Genet 31: 205–209. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

12. Friedman R,Hughes AL (2003) The temporal distribution of gene duplication events in a set of highly conserved human gene families. Mol Biol Evol 20: 154–161. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

13. Friedman R,Hughes AL (2001) Pattern and timing of gene duplication in animal genomes. Genome Res 11: 1842–1847. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

14. Popovici C,Leveugle M,Birnbaum D,Coulier F (2001) Homeobox gene clusters and the human paralogy map. FEBS Lett 491: 237–242. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

15. Adams MD,Celniker SE,Holt RA,Evans CA,Gocayne JD,et al. (2000) The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287: 2185–2195. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

16. Hughes AL (1999) Phylogenies of developmentally important proteins do not support the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate history. J Mol Evol 48: 565–576. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

17. Furlong RF,Holland PW (2002) Were vertebrates octoploid? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357: 531–544. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

18. Escriva H,Manzon L,Youson J,Laudet V (2002) Analysis of lamprey and hagfish genes reveals a complex history of gene duplications during early vertebrate evolution. Mol Biol Evol 19: 1440–1450. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

19. Holland PW,Garcia-Fernandez J,Williams NA,Sidow A (1994) Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development. Dev Suppl 125–133. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar


edit on 1-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
References continued....

20. Holland PW (2003) More genes in vertebrates? J Struct Funct Genomics 3: 75–84. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

21. Abi-Rached L,Gilles A,Shiina T,Pontarotti P,Inoko H (2002) Evidence of en bloc duplication in vertebrate genomes. Nat Genet 31: 100–105. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

22. Panopoulou G,Hennig S,Groth D,Krause A,Poustka AJ,et al. (2003) New evidence for genome-wide duplications at the origin of vertebrates using an amphioxus gene set and completed animal genomes. Genome Res 13: 1056–1066. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

23. Leveugle M,Prat K,Popovici C,Birnbaum D,Coulier F (2004) Phylogenetic analysis of Ciona intestinalis gene superfamilies supports the hypothesis of successive gene expansions. J Mol Evol 58: 168–181. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

24. Wolfe KH (2001) Yesterday's polyploids and the mystery of diploidization. Nat Rev Genet 2: 333–341. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

25. Lynch M,O'Hely M,Walsh B,Force A (2001) The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplicate. Genetics 159: 1789–1804. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

26. Lynch M,Conery JS (2000) The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151–1155. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

27. Wong S,Butler G,Wolfe KH (2002) Gene order evolution and paleopolyploidy in hemiascomycete yeasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 9272–9277. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

28. Vision TJ,Brown DG,Tanksley SD (2000) The origins of genomic duplications in Arabidopsis. Science 290: 2114–2117. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

29. Kellis M,Birren BW,Lander ES (2004) Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 428: 617–624. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

30. Dietrich FS,Voegeli S,Brachat S,Lerch A,Gates K,et al. (2004) The Ashbya gossypii genome as a tool for mapping the ancient Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Science 304: 304–307. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

31. Katsanis N,Fitzgibbon J,Fisher EM (1996) Paralogy mapping: identification of a region in the human MHC triplicated onto human chromosomes 1 and 9 allows the prediction and isolation of novel PBX and NOTCH loci. Genomics 35: 101–108. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

32. Pebusque MJ,Coulier F,Birnbaum D,Pontarotti P (1998) Ancient large-scale genome duplications: phylogenetic and linkage analyses shed light on chordate genome evolution. Mol Biol Evol 15: 1145–1159. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

33. Gibson TJ,Spring J (2000) Evidence in favour of ancient octaploidy in the vertebrate genome. Biochem Soc Trans 28: 259–264. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

34. Vienne A,Rasmussen J,Abi-Rached L,Pontarotti P,Gilles A (2003) Systematic phylogenomic evidence of en bloc duplication of the ancestral 8p11.21–8p21.3-like region. Mol Biol Evol 20: 1290–1298. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

35. Luke GN,Castro LF,McLay K,Bird C,Coulson A,et al. (2003) Dispersal of NK homeobox gene clusters in amphioxus and humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 5292–5295. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

36. Castro LF,Furlong RF,Holland PW (2004) An antecedent of the MHC-linked genomic region in amphioxus. Immunogenetics 55: 782–784. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

37. Castro LF,Holland PW (2003) Chromosomal mapping of ANTP class homeobox genes in amphioxus: Piecing together ancestral genomes. Evol Dev 5: 459–465. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

38. Dehal P,Satou Y,Campbell RK,Chapman J,Degnan B,et al. (2002) The draft genome of Ciona intestinalis Insights into chordate and vertebrate origins. Science 298: 2157–2167. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

39. Aparicio S,Chapman J,Stupka E,Putnam N,Chia JM,et al. (2002) Whole-genome shotgun assembly and analysis of the genome of Fugu rubripes. Science 297: 1301–1310. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

40. Waterston RH,Lindblad-Toh K,Birney E,Rogers J,Abril JF,et al. (2002) Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420: 520–562. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

41. Van de Peer Y,Taylor JS,Meyer A (2003) Are all fishes ancient polyploids? J Struct Funct Genomics 3: 65–73. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

42. Jaillon O,Aury JM,Brunet F,Petit JL,Stange-Thomann N,et al. (2004) Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype. Nature 431: 946–957. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

43. Horton AC,Mahadevan NR,Ruvinsky I,Gibson-Brown JJ (2003) Phylogenetic analyses alone are insufficient to determine whether genome duplication(s) occurred during early vertebrate evolution. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 299: 41–53. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

44. Seoighe C,Johnston CR,Shields DC (2003) Significantly different patterns of amino acid replacement after gene duplication as compared to after speciation. Mol Biol Evol 20: 484–490. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

45. Tymowska J,Fischberg M,Tinsley RC (1977) The karyotype of the tetraploid species Xenopus vestitus Laurent (Anura: pipidae). Cytogenet Cell Genet 19: 344–354. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

46. Jeffreys AJ,Wilson V,Wood D,Simons JP,Kay RM,et al. (1980) Linkage of adult alpha- and beta-globin genes in X. laevis and gene duplication by tetraploidization. Cell 21: 555–564. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

47. Taylor JS,Van de Peer Y,Braasch I,Meyer A (2001) Comparative genomics provides evidence for an ancient genome duplication event in fish. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 356: 1661–1679. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

48. Blanc G,Wolfe KH (2004) Widespread paleopolyploidy in model plant species inferred from age distributions of duplicate genes. Plant Cell 16: 1667–1678. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

49. Altschul SF,Gish W,Miller W,Myers EW,Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215: 403–410. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

50. Thompson JD,Higgins DG,Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 22: 4673–4680. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

51. Schmidt HA,Strimmer K,Vingron M,von Haeseler A (2002) TREE-PUZZLE: Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18: 502–504. View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
"Now players, I am not asking for links, I am asking for reasoned logical discussion. "

Pick any topic in evolution and I'll discuss it with you.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


All your science and logic is wrapped up in a few tardy little links that you provide.

No, it's wrapped up in the evidence, which those links can provide to you.


I have asked you explain evolution and YOU cant.

What do you need explained, exactly? Evolution is the observable phenomenon of a change in allele frequency over successive generations within a given population. The theory of evolution is an overarching framework that seeks to explain all of the observations about that phenomenon.


You expect me to open them and read them and fall in to line and march along.

Yes, when you make a ludicrous claim like "evolution is not science because it can't be observed, tested, or reproduced", then I do expect you to read information that someone provides that directly refutes that position. If your belief that evolution isn't science can't stand up to simple scrutiny, maybe it's time for you to re-evaluate your belief. I don't expect you to "fall in to line and march along". You can choose to disagree with the evidence presented to you, but I'd suggest that there are two criteria that should be met before you disagree with evidence:

1. You should understand the evidence.

2. You should have a rational and logical reason for disagreeing with the evidence.


Evolution and its practitioners remind me of buddhists chanting their mantras.

Funny you mention Buddhism. Know what the Dalai Lama had to say about science?


If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.


If evolution is so well established why all the effort still, if its proven like gravity why all the theory still being thrown up, why all the study.

Here's 341,000 scholarly research articles published between 2010-2015 on the subject of gravity. Again, you seem to misunderstand, on the most basic level possible, the difference between an observed scientific phenomenon and a scientific theory. Let me try to explain this by example:

Gravity is an observed phenomenon, the theory of gravity seeks to explain the phenomenon, and the theory of gravity has never been and can never be "proven", as that's not how theories work.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon, the theory of evolution seeks to explain the phenomenon, and the theory of evolution has never been and can never be "proven", as that's not how theories work.


You only have links and you expect me to read them and become a drone like you. Doesnt work that way.

It's sad that you equate even reading something and trying to understand a dissenting opinion as "being a drone". That's really no way to deny ignorance.


Now players, I am not asking for links, I am asking for reasoned logical discussion.

It's been given. You choose to ignore it.


I have noticed you cant provide that, guessing you are all just a little to shallow minded in your theory to back up your angry attitudes.

You can't refute any of the evidence that contrasts your science denialism, so you you resort to ad hominem attacks.


See I believe that atheist evolution links have no valid science, just assumption.

Recent Pew study puts acceptance of evolution at about 65% of the US population. Atheists account for, at best, 10-15% of the US population. If we assume that all of the atheists in the US accept evolution, which isn't the case, then that still leaves about 50% of the population that are theists and accept evolution... around 160,000,000 people. Conflating atheism and evolution is without foundation.


The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

The evidence has been provided. You continually ignore it with no actual argument against it, just basically saying "nope" over and over again.


Or you can just walk away and accept I have a different opinion.

If you're not interested in discussion and want people to walk away if they don't agree with you, why are you even on ATS?


I guess that cant happen, you hate others believing something you dont accept, sheer minded bloody fundamentalists is all that is left.

You've stayed as engaged as anyone in this, so doesn't your name-calling ring a little hollow in your own ears?







 
12
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join