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: 49
27
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



I have a degree in history and yet I love writing fiction and I'm teaching myself to play the guitar.



You missed the point entirely, I didn't say a left brained person couldn't be a brilliant musician I am saying that they are less equipped to be creative in writing their own compositions. I am in no position to judge how well you right fiction but it is not a hard rule but certainly a strong trend in my objective experience.




But all of this is based on your subjective opinion. You're also saying that evolution is wrong because scientists aren't creative. Which makes no sense. There's a huge amount of scientific evidence that says that evolution is happening all around us. Evidence that creationists ignore or belittle or even misrepresent, most of the time because they can't handle said evidence as it clashes with their own preconceptions.




posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

My observation is that there is not one critical thinker amongst all of the pro evolutionists on this thread to date, and I am hanging around hoping one will show up. In the meantime I will continue to highlight your own absurdities and ridicule each of you when you pick on friendly people who actually have faith in something that is good.

At least I can hold my head up as a lone wolf, compared to the pack animal mentality that is prevalent here, where you just jump in with jibes and then star each other as if you have been clever.

The only thing that can deter me is a valid argument of which I am still waiting.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Prezbo369

My observation is that there is not one critical thinker amongst all of the pro evolutionists on this thread to date, and I am hanging around hoping one will show up. In the meantime I will continue to highlight your own absurdities and ridicule each of you when you pick on friendly people who actually have faith in something that is good.

At least I can hold my head up as a lone wolf, compared to the pack animal mentality that is prevalent here, where you just jump in with jibes and then star each other as if you have been clever.

The only thing that can deter me is a valid argument of which I am still waiting.


Words fail me. They really do fail me. So, all of us here who have cited serious, scientific journals written by scientists, peer-reviewed by scientists and undisputed by scientists are somehow intellectually lazy and somehow deficient in critical thinking, whereas all the people who turn up and say "Evolution is wrong and stinky and unscientific because a big book that might or might not have been written 2,000-odd years ago says so!" are somehow correct? Seriously?



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



But all of this is based on your subjective opinion. You're also saying that evolution is wrong because scientists aren't creative. Which makes no sense. There's a huge amount of scientific evidence that says that evolution is happening all around us. Evidence that creationists ignore or belittle or even misrepresent, most of the time because they can't handle said evidence as it clashes with their own preconceptions.


There is popular science and unpopular science, an example would be Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Fields, Sheldrake is highly qualified and highly respected by many scientists. His views are not popular but his arguments are equally convincing if you where to study his work.

I would hazard to say, that if his work where to become mainstream and supported, many here would be fighting tooth and nail to defend him, not because they agree necessarily because they are unable to form their own opinions, but because it puts them on what they believe is the winning side.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



Words fail me. They really do fail me. So, all of us here who have cited serious, scientific journals written by scientists, peer-reviewed by scientists and undisputed by scientists are somehow intellectually lazy and somehow deficient in critical thinking,


I love laconic. Yes



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Prezbo369

My observation is that there is not one critical thinker amongst all of the pro evolutionists on this thread to date, and I am hanging around hoping one will show up. In the meantime I will continue to highlight your own absurdities and ridicule each of you when you pick on friendly people who actually have faith in something that is good.

At least I can hold my head up as a lone wolf, compared to the pack animal mentality that is prevalent here, where you just jump in with jibes and then star each other as if you have been clever.

The only thing that can deter me is a valid argument of which I am still waiting.


You're a proponent of I.D.......you'll never ever accept anything that conflicts with that supernatural belief. I'm sure you're aware of this and everyone else is too, so your attempts at presenting yourself as merely someone looking for the objective truth are kinda pointless (unless you're just trying to show 'the designer' just how good of a follower you are).

All you're doing is making things up off the top of your head and making a fool of yourself. It is on some small level quite entertaining (for me at least) to read your typically desperate claims and denials in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't describe your position as a lone wolf, more a Meerkat that endures a self imposed ostracisation.
edit on 3-12-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You certainly have a way with words


Oh well, even Meerkats have to sleep, good night everybody.
edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Barc, I did address your points. You just did not like the answers.
I never said those changes "could not have happened". They very well may have but if you think they did then you have to take that on faith. You BELIEVE they happened because , to you, it makes perfect sense. But it is only a belief. It is faith. It is not science my friend.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Barc, I did address your points. You just did not like the answers.
I never said those changes "could not have happened". They very well may have but if you think they did then you have to take that on faith. You BELIEVE they happened because , to you, it makes perfect sense. But it is only a belief. It is faith. It is not science my friend.


You've shown on many occasions that you wouldn't know science if it came up and kicked you in the butt.

However you have an intimate knowledge of faith, so it makes perfect sense that you'd project that on anyone that disagrees with you.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369
Why thank you prezbo. That comment, coming from you, is actually a compliment.
You are one of the many people on here that make Barcs and others look bad. You latch on to the theory of evolution simply because of your dislike of religion. From your post in other threads it is clear that half the time you have no idea of what you are speaking.
Like the post above you put down those of religion without every really contributing anything. Most times you will not even post in a thread unless there is someone you feel you can bully.
Go away little troll, you are starting to bore me.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Prezbo369
Why thank you prezbo. That comment, coming from you, is actually a compliment.
You are one of the many people on here that make Barcs and others look bad. You latch on to the theory of evolution simply because of your dislike of religion. From your post in other threads it is clear that half the time you have no idea of what you are speaking.
Like the post above you put down those of religion without every really contributing anything. Most times you will not even post in a thread unless there is someone you feel you can bully.
Go away little troll, you are starting to bore me.


Yes I latch onto evolution purely because of my dislike and fascination of religion and superstitionalists, just like how I reject hollow earth theory purely due to my dislike of Nazis.....not because of the evidence....


Your post is yet more projection, you reject the theory of evolution for no other reason than you feel it conflicts with your superstitions. And your own posts are usually completely vacuous to the point of ridicule.

But as you've shown, along with certain other people with the same set of superstitions, your fall back position is to throw out ad hominems which shows in detail the level of argument you actually bring here.

Good job!

edit on 3-12-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

There is science that adheres to the scientific method and pseudo-science that doesn't. Sheldrake is a good example of the latter. "Well respected" indeed! He ignores all of the criticism of his flawed research from the wider scientific community. No surprise that you buy into that BS simply because it confirms your preconceived beliefs about the world. I don't think you would know sound science if it came up to you and waved its balls in your face.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



But all of this is based on your subjective opinion. You're also saying that evolution is wrong because scientists aren't creative. Which makes no sense. There's a huge amount of scientific evidence that says that evolution is happening all around us. Evidence that creationists ignore or belittle or even misrepresent, most of the time because they can't handle said evidence as it clashes with their own preconceptions.


There is popular science and unpopular science, an example would be Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Fields, Sheldrake is highly qualified and highly respected by many scientists. His views are not popular but his arguments are equally convincing if you where to study his work.

I would hazard to say, that if his work where to become mainstream and supported, many here would be fighting tooth and nail to defend him, not because they agree necessarily because they are unable to form their own opinions, but because it puts them on what they believe is the winning side.


Rupert Sheldrake? Seriously? This guy?



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Prezbo369

My observation is that there is not one critical thinker amongst all of the pro evolutionists on this thread to date, and I am hanging around hoping one will show up. In the meantime I will continue to highlight your own absurdities and ridicule each of you when you pick on friendly people who actually have faith in something that is good.

At least I can hold my head up as a lone wolf, compared to the pack animal mentality that is prevalent here, where you just jump in with jibes and then star each other as if you have been clever.

The only thing that can deter me is a valid argument of which I am still waiting.


Your observation skills aren't very good.
Your "evidence" is poor.
And your description of yourself as a "lone wolf" tells me all I need to know.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Prezbo369

My observation is that there is not one critical thinker amongst all of the pro evolutionists on this thread to date, and I am hanging around hoping one will show up. In the meantime I will continue to highlight your own absurdities and ridicule each of you when you pick on friendly people who actually have faith in something that is good.

At least I can hold my head up as a lone wolf, compared to the pack animal mentality that is prevalent here, where you just jump in with jibes and then star each other as if you have been clever.

The only thing that can deter me is a valid argument of which I am still waiting.


What a crock!

You cry critical thinking but you want to restrict it to fit your beliefs? Indeed the definition of delusion is believing something in spite of contradictory information. Your continued avoidance and deflection is all the proof I need that you maintain your belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, that the main mechanism you use to maintain your belief is to ignore the contrary evidence to delude yourself into thinking it isn't real. It's part of cognitive dissonance behavior not critical thinking.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



But all of this is based on your subjective opinion. You're also saying that evolution is wrong because scientists aren't creative. Which makes no sense. There's a huge amount of scientific evidence that says that evolution is happening all around us. Evidence that creationists ignore or belittle or even misrepresent, most of the time because they can't handle said evidence as it clashes with their own preconceptions.


There is popular science and unpopular science, an example would be Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Fields, Sheldrake is highly qualified and highly respected by many scientists. His views are not popular but his arguments are equally convincing if you where to study his work.

I would hazard to say, that if his work where to become mainstream and supported, many here would be fighting tooth and nail to defend him, not because they agree necessarily because they are unable to form their own opinions, but because it puts them on what they believe is the winning side.


Rupert Sheldrake? Seriously? This guy?



His latest book, "The Science Delusion" is an anti-scientific rant, in which he applies postmodernist hyperscepticism to science, accusing scientists of adhering to "scientific dogmata", such as the constancy of the speed of light. Ironically, Sheldrake fails to apply any sort of scepticism to his own ideas, which he promotes uncritically, despite there being no evidence for them


Certainly explains kennyb's attitude towards all of us quite nicely. Like his ideas and attitude are so similar that it's almost like kennyb IS Sheldrake. But that couldn't be the case could it?

edit on 3-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Certainly explains kennyb's attitude towards all of us quite nicely. Like his ideas and attitude are so similar that it's almost like kennyb IS Sheldrake. But that couldn't be the case could it?


Are you a conspirationist or what ?




posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Certainly explains kennyb's attitude towards all of us quite nicely. Like his ideas and attitude are so similar that it's almost like kennyb IS Sheldrake. But that couldn't be the case could it?


Are you a conspirationist or what ?



You never know..

Most of Sheldrake's ideas are clearly pseudoscientific nonsense. Morphic resonance is extremely vague and ill-defined, and can only really be described as whatever Sheldrake says it is. Crucially, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable (although some have tried).
His latest book, "The Science Delusion" is an anti-scientific rant, in which he applies postmodernist hyperscepticism to science, accusing scientists of adhering to "scientific dogmata", such as the constancy of the speed of light. Ironically, Sheldrake fails to apply any sort of scepticism to his own ideas, which he promotes uncritically, despite there being no evidence for them.


Sounds familiar? or he could just be a fan-boy.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




I don't think you would know sound science if it came up to you and waved its balls in your face.


LMAO!

Can I have your permission to use that?



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

See, once you see it. You can't unsee it.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join