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: 50
12
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

I see you are back full circle to the same strawman arguments you posted in your OP.


Yeah, imagine my surprise to see this sh1t show of a thread resurrected in my recent activity list.

Have people not realized what a colossal waste of time it is to debate borntowatch??




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I'm not so much debating borntowatch, I'm just making sure that the lurkers in the thread know that his arguments are fundamentally flawed, why they're wrong, and where to find information on evolution so they can read for themselves. Thought it would be nice for borntowatch to finally be honest with himself and everyone else here and admit that, regardless of what evidence is presented to him, he's going to ignore it or disagree with it because it doesn't agree with his faith.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

I see you are back full circle to the same strawman arguments you posted in your OP.


Yeah, imagine my surprise to see this sh1t show of a thread resurrected in my recent activity list.

Have people not realized what a colossal waste of time it is to debate borntowatch??


Starred
I guess they havnt, I guess their base fundamental nature cant leave them to accept that others are allowed to have another view opposing theirs.
I guess they cant understand I think their evidence is as shallow as their fossil record pool, I guess they think e coli turning into e coli is enough to win every argument I guess they just dont realise I am not here to debate them.

Bacteria turning into bacteria, a mouse into a mouse, wow thats not evolution thats harry potter magic. Imagine how good that would look in a movie, harry potter casts a spell on a mouse then shazzam it turns into a mouse.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Answer

I'm not so much debating borntowatch, I'm just making sure that the lurkers in the thread know that his arguments are fundamentally flawed, why they're wrong, and where to find information on evolution so they can read for themselves. Thought it would be nice for borntowatch to finally be honest with himself and everyone else here and admit that, regardless of what evidence is presented to him, he's going to ignore it or disagree with it because it doesn't agree with his faith.


Yeah, that was all established 48 pages ago.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

I see you are back full circle to the same strawman arguments you posted in your OP.


Yeah, imagine my surprise to see this sh1t show of a thread resurrected in my recent activity list.

Have people not realized what a colossal waste of time it is to debate borntowatch??


borntowatch resurrected it himself. The last reply was 4 months ago (September 24) until borntowatch posted again 3 days ago (January 31).



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

I see you are back full circle to the same strawman arguments you posted in your OP.


Yeah, imagine my surprise to see this sh1t show of a thread resurrected in my recent activity list.

Have people not realized what a colossal waste of time it is to debate borntowatch??


borntowatch resurrected it himself. The last reply was 4 months ago (September 24) until borntowatch posted again 3 days ago (January 31).



That figures. The hornets' nest was too calm for his liking.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

I see you are back full circle to the same strawman arguments you posted in your OP.

Bringing it back on track, if you dont like it find the door.
Why do my beliefs offend you, what is so wrong with my choices, is it me or is it you that has the problem.


Discussing strawmans is back on track? More like you decided to ignore all counterevidence that showed your premises were wrong (and logical fallacies) and reiterated the OP. This thread has gone on now for 50 pages, surely you should have learned a thing or two since then.

Also, It's not so much that I'm offended by your beliefs. I'm offended that you post a topic of discussion and completely ignore any counter information then pretend like no counter information has ever been posted. So I'd say that it is you that is the problem here.

Remember these posts? link 1. link 2? No, probably not. Well I remember them and am STILL waiting for you to respond to the evidence I posted in those two links.
edit on 3-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Maybe so, but I doubt that someone seeing this pop up on the recent posts page is going to read back through all 48 pages. At least not at first.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


I guess they havnt, I guess their base fundamental nature cant leave them to accept that others are allowed to have another view opposing theirs.

Who here has said, in any way, that you're not allowed to have your own view? What you're not allowed to have is your own facts. You've stated repeatedly that evolution is not testable, not observable, and not reproducible; that is factually incorrect, you have been provided the evidence to that effect, and you ignore it. That has nothing to do with accepting an opposing view.


I guess they cant understand I think their evidence is as shallow as their fossil record pool, I guess they think e coli turning into e coli is enough to win every argument I guess they just dont realise I am not here to debate them.

If you're not here to discuss, then what are you here for? Proselytizing?


Bacteria turning into bacteria, a mouse into a mouse, wow thats not evolution thats harry potter magic. Imagine how good that would look in a movie, harry potter casts a spell on a mouse then shazzam it turns into a mouse.

You still don't understand what you're arguing against. Sad.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

borntowatch resurrected it himself. The last reply was 4 months ago (September 24) until borntowatch posted again 3 days ago (January 31).


Yeah but you missed the most amazing part of my evil cunning plan and how i brainwashed you all
I made YOU reply by just using my mega powers.

Pathetic isnt it?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero

You still don't understand what you're arguing against. Sad.


Well how about you,yes you, step up. iam interseted, go ahead, the floor is yours, enlighten me



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero

Here's a short list of some examples of observed speciation. This list is 20 years old, and far from exhaustive or complete. Again, if you want to ignore the evidence, that's your prerogative. But be honest and say that you simply won't accept any evidence for evolution because it disagrees with your particular faith. But don't claim that there's no evidence or that evolution isn't really science, because that's simple dishonesty.


Some pages ago this exact thing came up I replied.
A goatweed became a goatweed, a mouse became a mouse, fish became fish.
I believe that, we have a name for that, it proves you dont understand the argument nothing more.


As I said, pick a topic. I don't need chaotic rhetoric. Thanks.

P.S. The evidence I will bring will be first hand from the lab.




No you pick any one you like from my opening thread, please go right ahead.
I am interested, no desire to win an argument, here to learn.
I dont believe that what you believe is a science, but will if I see the evidence.

hey, no game, no joke. I will believe if you can use science to justify your answer.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Read any of the links I have posted directly in reply to you in this thread or others, which included the following:

1. Some basics about what science is and how science works, since you seem to have some misunderstandings about that on the most basic level.

2. Some basics about evolution and what it actually claims, since you seem to have some misunderstandings about that on the most basic level.

3. A list of common misconceptions about evolution, including information on how evolution is observable, testable, and reproducible, since you seem to have some misunderstandings about that on the most basic level.

I'm more than happy to have a discussion about the science with you, but when you make factually inaccurate claims like speciation has never been observed, then it's obvious you don't understand that science well enough to discuss it intelligently. And, so far, every comment you've made when that information has been presented to you has been paranoid rants about how the people presenting you with information are trying to control you and tell you what to think. My hopes for you reading and at least trying to understand what's being presented are low, at best. I'd much prefer it if you were simply honest and said, "I will accept none of the evidence presented to me for evolution because it disagrees with my faith."
edit on 3/2/2015 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero

Here's a short list of some examples of observed speciation. This list is 20 years old, and far from exhaustive or complete. Again, if you want to ignore the evidence, that's your prerogative. But be honest and say that you simply won't accept any evidence for evolution because it disagrees with your particular faith. But don't claim that there's no evidence or that evolution isn't really science, because that's simple dishonesty.


Some pages ago this exact thing came up I replied.
A goatweed became a goatweed, a mouse became a mouse, fish became fish.
I believe that, we have a name for that, it proves you dont understand the argument nothing more.


As I said, pick a topic. I don't need chaotic rhetoric. Thanks.

P.S. The evidence I will bring will be first hand from the lab.




No you pick any one you like from my opening thread, please go right ahead.
I am interested, no desire to win an argument, here to learn.
I dont believe that what you believe is a science, but will if I see the evidence.

hey, no game, no joke. I will believe if you can use science to justify your answer.


oh, this is a game. its a game of who can be the hardiest of skeptics. we are skeptical. you are skeptical of our skepticism. we are skeptical of your skepticality. it goes on, exactly as long as neither of us gives ground. and neither of us will.

prophecy or common sense?




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Borntowatch is a preacher. Please ignore him. He doesn't bring any evidence to the table, just his warped view on reality based on fallacies and lies. You will not get an honest discussion out of him, there is no point. He revived 2 separate threads on the same day, for no reason whatsoever, now he's making the same identical claims he was making previously. He routinely vanishes for months at a time, and then comes back repeating the same nonsense as if it hasn't even been debunked.

The fact that he STILL claims that no evidence was presented or that fossils are dated based on rocks and rocks based on fossils, speaks volumes about the flat out dishonesty. The sad thing is that the 10 core commandments of his faith state not to bear false witness, and Jesus never once attacked folks and made up lies about things he didn't agree with. He claims that he believes his faith, yet doesn't even follow the basic rules. He's a hypocrite, a liar and a fraud. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually WAS Kent Hovind or Ken Ham.

Times are getting desperate for recruitment with all the scientifically savvy young folks these days. The youth is getting smarter and as a result fundamentalism and organize religion as a whole is slowly dying. Borntowatch doesn't like this and is desperately clinging on to the one thread left of young earth creationism. Why not preach the positives of the faith, instead of trying to debunk science with lies? Why is is so difficult for him to live his life as Jesus did?

He's probably a troll, but in reality he's not worth responding to. This section practically has died, and it's funny how the only thing that gets people talking again, is blatant lies and intentional ignorance spread by a preacher. Creationism doesn't have a leg left to stand on. To date, there has never been a valid argument against evolution presented by a science denier. Not a single one. What does that say about the anti science movement still relying on arguments that are decades old and debunked? Sorry, it's over. YEC had a good run (at least entertaining to folks that understand science), but it's over now. Throw away those cassettes and get an ipod already. Stop clinging to literal translations of texts written during a time when 95% of people were illiterate (and knew nothing about the world) and thinking it is absolute truth. It's ridiculous.

edit on 3-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero

Here's a short list of some examples of observed speciation. This list is 20 years old, and far from exhaustive or complete. Again, if you want to ignore the evidence, that's your prerogative. But be honest and say that you simply won't accept any evidence for evolution because it disagrees with your particular faith. But don't claim that there's no evidence or that evolution isn't really science, because that's simple dishonesty.


Some pages ago this exact thing came up I replied.
A goatweed became a goatweed, a mouse became a mouse, fish became fish.
I believe that, we have a name for that, it proves you dont understand the argument nothing more.


As I said, pick a topic. I don't need chaotic rhetoric. Thanks.

P.S. The evidence I will bring will be first hand from the lab.




No you pick any one you like from my opening thread, please go right ahead.
I am interested, no desire to win an argument, here to learn.
I dont believe that what you believe is a science, but will if I see the evidence.

hey, no game, no joke. I will believe if you can use science to justify your answer.


Your response suggests to me that you don't know jack about any one of the items you posted. Once again, you pick out a topic - you're the one who ignores the evidence, not I.

This sounds like the beginning of the disappearing act I mentioned previously - a way to weasel out of responding.




edit on 3-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

It's comical. He wants to discuss a part of evolution, but only what he has put in the OP, which is precisely NOT evolution nor any part of it. At this point it almost has to be willful ignorance. I don't buy the not understanding part.
edit on 3-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Phantom423

It's comical. He wants to discuss a part of evolution, but only what he has put in the OP, which is precisely NOT evolution nor any part of it. At this point it almost has to be willful ignorance. I don't buy the not understanding part.


That's the point - he doesn't understand what evolution is and what it isn't. He's created a semantical argument to coverup total ignorance. This comment confirms it:

"I guess they think e coli turning into e coli is enough to win every argument I guess they just dont realise I am not here to debate them.
Bacteria turning into bacteria, a mouse into a mouse, wow thats not evolution thats harry potter magic. Imagine how good that would look in a movie, harry potter casts a spell on a mouse then shazzam it turns into a mouse. "

Doesn't have a clue.


edit on 3-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

Read any of the links I have posted directly in reply to you in this thread or others, which included the following:

1. Some basics about what science is and how science works, since you seem to have some misunderstandings about that on the most basic level.

2. Some basics about evolution and what it actually claims, since you seem to have some misunderstandings about that on the most basic level.

3. A list of common misconceptions about evolution, including information on how evolution is observable, testable, and reproducible, since you seem to have some misunderstandings about that on the most basic level.

I'm more than happy to have a discussion about the science with you, but when you make factually inaccurate claims like speciation has never been observed, then it's obvious you don't understand that science well enough to discuss it intelligently. And, so far, every comment you've made when that information has been presented to you has been paranoid rants about how the people presenting you with information are trying to control you and tell you what to think. My hopes for you reading and at least trying to understand what's being presented are low, at best. I'd much prefer it if you were simply honest and said, "I will accept none of the evidence presented to me for evolution because it disagrees with my faith."


Well show me the speciation, just go right ahead and show it off, no links.

We can even question the nature of science.

My issue with you and those similar to you.
It seems you have an attitude that you have to prove yourself to everyone. I am not interested in that game
Prove your science, if you can. Dont get a link to do it, dont use a piece of paper, carry the burden yourself.


As for my paranoid rants, they are no different than the paranoid rants of those addressing the creation site links posted. Atheists act no different

I dont read links as I cant question links, you read them and agree, I disagree and cant question what they say.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423


"I guess they think e coli turning into e coli is enough to win every argument I guess they just dont realise I am not here to debate them.
Bacteria turning into bacteria, a mouse into a mouse, wow thats not evolution thats harry potter magic. Imagine how good that would look in a movie, harry potter casts a spell on a mouse then shazzam it turns into a mouse. "

Doesn't have a clue.



Bacteria turning into bacteria is not good enough for me, maybe thats a clue for you


Tell me what new information was added to that ecoli bacteria, what evolved, show me the evidence of new information being added, no cowardly links full of irrelevant information, hard evidence

Show me where and how new information in its genetic code was added and how and then I will have a clue, if you cant then we both dont have a clue

Dont hide behind a link and pages of irrelevant information.

Please you or any other atheist step up and answer the question right here

here is your chance to prove yourself, your theory, your science your chance to shine beyond any other.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join