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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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 ?
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.