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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 47
27
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Not really a scientific proof but an interesting perspective : thread




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: flyingfish

And how exactly are you able to disprove these lies?



I don't need to, creationists only ever had a few hypotheses, and all of them have been utterly refuted. You creationist only survive in small dark pockets of internet hollows, still trying to revive arguments that have been already proven wrong at least a century ago. Evolution with natural selection is the only explanation of biodiversity with evidentiary support or scientific validity. There has only ever been one alternative theory against it, and it was an earlier version of evolution!

No creationism has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory. They can’t because science requires both accuracy and accountability. So there has to be a way to detect and correct any errors in a given explanation, and determine for certain whether it’s wrong in whole or in part, or whether any of it is true at all.

A theory has to be tested and verified independently. It demands understanding of process instead of belief. It must be based on verifiable evidence, It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy, It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these requirements, then it's not science. If it meets none of them, it could be religion.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as I can tell he (if its not sorry) will quote that Berkeley site. Its all very nice, but in Biochem, genetics and anthropology (hey I was curious) the terms Micro and Macro evolution were never used in the papers (up to honors level for the first two). Its pretty much a straw man argument. Its got zero substance to it.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



my personal contributions involve educating folks who aren't familiar with subject

You are right, our exchange ends here, and this, my last post really brings us to the crux of where our opinions clash. It is quite irritating to have self elected wikipedia enthusiasts who thoroughly enjoy preaching, babble on about what they have learned, when we have already made these enquiries ourselves.

There is nothing you have to contribute that we haven't read or spent time considering , we simply disagree with the scientific view. We try to explain why we disagree, to attempt to find common ground for discussion, and are then derided for not believing in your God.

We are most definitely at the disadvantage due to the fact that we can't provide evidence to people who walk about with their eyes closed,when the truth is right in front of them. I can only compare it with, pointing out a rainbow to a blind person, or asking a deaf person to enjoy a beautiful piece of music. You so want them to experience it because you know what a joy it is, but have to resign to the fact that they simply don't have the faculties to appreciate it.

Just consider for one moment, how wonderful it must be, to have an original thought and then discuss it with other intellectuals. Not that this is likely to happen to any of you guys, but if it ever does, you may have to search around for a forum with open minded, thinking people, a rarity in this day and age of modern science I am sorry to say.

Thanks for the prawns!
edit on 2-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: prawns



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought you were but I wasn't entirely sure if you thought I knew the answers to questions I was asking.

Appreciate the supporting evidence. I wish he would look at it but....well something tells me otherwise.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Grimpachi

Not really a scientific proof but an interesting perspective : thread


It is certainly interesting but I admit I am not even close to having an informed opinion on it. I do have an opinion but I know it doesn't hold any weight. The field is in its infancy and even going to see Michio Kaku speak about it at some colleges I am still scratching my head. I have no doubt that in a thousand years there will be developments beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe they a clone of me will enjoy the fruits of their labors.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as I can tell he (if its not sorry) will quote that Berkeley site. Its all very nice, but in Biochem, genetics and anthropology (hey I was curious) the terms Micro and Macro evolution were never used in the papers (up to honors level for the first two). Its pretty much a straw man argument. Its got zero substance to it.


Yeah micro and macro only describes the same process at different points in an evolutionary line. Most academics understand that which is why they hardly ever use it.

The terms seems to be as more misunderstood as the definitions of theory in layman terms i.e idea and scientific theory.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

You are right, our exchange ends here, and this, my last post really brings us to the crux of where our opinions clash. It is quite irritating to have self elected wikipedia enthusiasts who thoroughly enjoy preaching, babble on about what they have learned, when we have already made these enquiries ourselves.


Just remember, its your own choice to look down your nose at others in a bout of vitriolic hypocrisy while attempting to claim the moral high ground. You want to bask in the self serving and oh so superior glow of Christ and pretend that you do not don the mantle of self flagellation in a bid fr self aggrandizement. Your lord and savior is puking up cheap wine and communion wafers in a back alley somewhere right now.


There is nothing you have to contribute that we haven't read or spent time considering , we simply disagree with the scientific view.


And the heights of arrogance continue to climb...


We try to explain why we disagree, to attempt to find common ground for discussion, and are then derided for not believing in your God.


Not at all. You're derided for insisting that your god is the only real god as you swaddled yourselves in superiority in a decidedly unChrist-like fashion.



We are most definitely at the disadvantage due to the fact that we can't provide evidence to people who walk about with their eyes closed,when the truth is right in front of them.


Seeing as the vast majority of people living today believe some variation of the god of Abraham, that's complete lunacy and absolute self denial.


I can only compare it with, pointing out a rainbow to a blind person, or asking a deaf person to enjoy a beautiful piece of music. You so want them to experience it because you know what a joy it is, but have to resign to the fact that they simply don't have the faculties to appreciate it.


You obviously have never introduced a deaf person to music for the first time or else you would know just how far away from reality you reside. Maybe just once you should deign yourself to flirt with the mere mortals and watch the face of the blind person you have just introduced to the differences between warm and cool colors or a demonstration of what a billowy cloud would feel like. This is precisely the issue with so many people with your world view, you simply cannot fathom that there is merit in any other cognitive perception aside from your own limited range if perceived values. What a shame for you to live in such bleakness and have no clue.


Just consider for one moment, how wonderful it must be, to have an original thought and then discuss it with other intellectuals. Not that this is likely to happen to any of you guys, but if it ever does, you may have to search around for a forum with open minded, thinking people, a rarity in this day and age of modern science I am sorry to say.


I think that once again, your arrogance is writing checks you'll never be able to cash. You would be surprised at how many people frequent these forums who have contributed in the only way you apparently feel is considered meaningful, how many people lurk behind each corner with graduate degrees and post grad fellowships under their belts while you Monday morning quarterback yesterday's catechism. Its people like you, with that outlook and attitude that earn my pity.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I can accept microgrowth but macrogrowth is pure fantasy. Have you ever seen a half-pensioner, half-toddler? A baby suddenly sprout a beard? Didn't think so! Checkmate atheists.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
HELLO BARCS!!
It's nice to be back. I miss the "discussions"

I do not remember you posing those questions to me. I will take your word for it though as I have found you to be honest in the past.
The simplest answer that I can give to your query is that you have left science behind and entered the realm of faith. Science can not say that a monkey eventually evolved into a human.....but faith can.
As I have said before, I can not (nor will I try) to prove these have not happened. That actually is not the point. I can say they have not, you can say that they have. But both concepts are faith based.
I guess the "magical line" is the place where science ends and faith takes over. The "theory" is flawed for just this reason. Large parts of biological evolution are based on faith.
COULD IT OF HAPPENED? SURE. Did it actually happen though? No honest way to be sure. You have to take it on faith and faith alone.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Sorry krazyshot but your analogy does not prove your point very well.
By the time your sand pile became a mountain you, my friend, would have to take it on faith that it started out as sand at all. Unless you meant a sand dune. Now that would be a horse of an entirely different color, now wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Was I here to observe it?...Ummmm....NO.
I have not brought my beliefs into this thread once. Yet you feel the need to attack them without having any idea of what they are.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN TELL THAT MUCH FROM AN AVATAR AND A QUOTE? Seriously?
Actually your little snippet should read "Man makes no distinction between the micro and the macro" because science surly does. You can make a case for one with science. You can make a case for the other with faith.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Is that it! - I go fishing and this is the best I can catch. Go and talk to somebody from one of the Abrahamic religions, maybe they will understand what you are blathering on about. Terrific research by the way, it only required for you to read one or two of my short posts to understand my viewpoint. I think I will throw this one back as it doesn't have enough substance for me to consume.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as I can tell he (if its not sorry) will quote that Berkeley site. Its all very nice, but in Biochem, genetics and anthropology (hey I was curious) the terms Micro and Macro evolution were never used in the papers (up to honors level for the first two). Its pretty much a straw man argument. Its got zero substance to it.

macro is evolution above species level.
micro is small changes at species level.
What papers are you referring to? Links? I like to read.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: TechUnique

Except you obviously don't care about science. You are just hoping to use pseudoscience to validate beliefs you already have. The theory of evolution developed from observable evidence over hundreds of years by people who weren't trying to prove it wrong. They were merely observing.



Show one verifiable change in any animal turning into another animal. Evolution is complete BS and if you ask any scientist they will admit that it is all a guess based off fossil records, meaning they made it up to deny GOD. Also there is the Missing Link, By the way Monkeys are still Monkeys!! Neanderthals were shown to be another species all together and were killed off by Man.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish




You creationist only survive in small dark pockets of internet hollows, still trying to revive arguments that have been already proven wrong at least a century ago.


Go ask any mathematician or Astronomer and they will flat tell you that all of it now points to the whole universe being made by a divine God. Every animal on the planet loves yet love is the one thing that not one of us needs to live and survive. Math is another but is found everywhere in the universe. Only God could have done that!!!!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium



Was I here to observe it?...Ummmm....NO.


I knew that.



I have not brought my beliefs into this thread once. Yet you feel the need to attack them without having any idea of what they are.


It is true you have not stated your beliefs in "THIS THREAD" however I have seen you in other threads and have a very good idea of what they are.



DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN TELL THAT MUCH FROM AN AVATAR AND A QUOTE? Seriously?


It has nothing to do with your avatar and everything to do with your post history.

You realize anyone can read that don't you. I guess you are a here and now kinda person.




actually your little snippet should read "Man makes no distinction between the micro and the macro" because science surly does. You can make a case for one with science. You can make a case for the other with faith.


No my snippet should stay exactly as it is but yours should read.

"You can make a case for the other with science as well"

I have said on several occasions to you in this thread if you disagree then post then post the articles that back your position. Afterall you are the one disagreeing with what science has stated on the matter not I. The onus is on you.

As I said before which you have proved me right what 4 times now. You will not post scientific evidence for your position because it doesn't exist.

Feel free to slink away from that challenge again you seem adept to it.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge



Every animal on the planet loves yet love is the one thing that not one of us needs to live and survive


Very good point actually, from a male viewpoint it is not a pre-requirement for us to procreate, so that in itself presents an interesting question.

ETA: Not for me by the way, I am firmly in the camp of intelligent design.
edit on 2-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
If you were actually aware of my post history you would know, with out a doubt, that I do not discuss my beliefs in a science based thread unless asked about said belief. Therefore, sir, you are either lying or confused. I am leaning towards the former.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72


I am referring to Theoretical Physics which everybody is qualified to do

There, there. Yes, of course they are.

How's your tensor calculus?




top topics



 
27
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join