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: 56
27
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

But I thought you were a great detector of anti-science? How can you say that evidence for something is unimportant, unless *GASP* you have no idea what science actually is? And then you didn't even break down the evidence I provided to see if it was credible or not. Heck you didn't even read it. How is that scientific? You claim to know what is and isn't science, but your actions and words say otherwise.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider valid science? Give me some examples, not a vague description.
edit on 4-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Yup proves we are all conected with every living thing.
Makes me proud that does.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

No wonder bananas fit in our hands so perfectly!
2nd.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But but...






posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well dang you got me..

You have a Youtube video after all..



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In other.words, you have no reasonable cause to believe this occurred naturally

Evidence for abiogenesis to occur: 0

Evidence for God: not important

Case closed


Erm, sorry, but I thought that there was no evidence of God other than faith. Which isn't evidence. Faith is faith.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
So who wants to wager some bananas this thread steamrolls the page count of the other "evolution is false" thread on the front page of the Origins and Creationism forum?

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

Currently at 62 pages.

This one is at 56.

I'm going to say this one goes to at least 75.

I bet twenty bananas.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
Anybody entering this thread, that has not supported the scientific view, has been subjected to outright aggression, hence MY tone. Out of all the ankle biting terrier on this thread, you come across as a more reasonable person although it is marginal.


Don't be intimated by the amount of words I use, I'm a thorough individual. It's a little bit disturbing that you consider being asked to back up your claims, to be some form of aggression. Let's not forget that you came into a science thread, attacked science and the scientists in the field with generalities, and talked down to many folks that responded to you while acting like your philosophy or world view is fact. You insulted our intelligence multiple times already. I have not personally insulted anybody in this thread, nor have I talked down to them. I simply stated the truth that people are unjustly attacking science and pointed out the fallacies that folks have used.


I will direct you to Google, to view my opinions on so called settled science, for many of the theories that are currently popular. Simply type "objection to"(name your theory) and you will see my standpoint, I simply can't be bothered going through it all with you. Please don't call this lazy, because it is exactly what your pack of rabid terriers do including yourself. You all feel so safe, by pointing out a clever persons point of view, but only when you feel you are on a safe bet.


You have got to be kidding me. I feel safe because the science agrees with my viewpoint on this, but I also have studied the subject extensively, so when I see gross misunderstandings of what people THINK the theory says, I am compelled to correct them to preserve intellectual honesty and to deny ignorance. If evidence arose one day that proved god, dimensions, or Pythagoras' philosophy, then I would be happy to support that as well. Evidence speaks louder than anything else.

No offense, but you suggested that other people were just blindly following other people's work when they cited scientific sources, but now you are asking me to google a catch phrase which will undoubtedly link to somebody else's opinion, and more than likely numerous opinions. If you can't even supply a link that explains or backs up your viewpoint that IS lazy. Extremely lazy. Of course some people have objections to things. That doesn't make them right. You want me to read though numerous links just to try and figure out where you are coming from? I want the one that is backed by evidence. That is up to you, not me. I'm not just going to believe your claims on faith alone. That isn't how I roll. I scrutinize EVERYTHING.

Yeah, I'll do that as soon as you google "evidence for evolution" and "scientific method" and you will see my viewpoint. I simply can't be bothered going through it all with you! Just type those general statements in google and do all the work because I don't feel like it!



If any of you where scientists, which obviously non of you are! you would know that a theory is only as good as the latest data available and that assumptions have to be made throughout the entire process.

Irrelevant condescending banter that has nothing to do with the discussion and shows you aren't familiar with scientific terminology or the difference between a hypothesis, theory and a simple assumption. Hypotheses start out as educated guesses based on existing data and evidence. They are then TESTED and then either confirmed or debunked. They don't just throw a bunch of guesses together and call it a theory. They run experiments to try to falsify it. They use it to make predictions of future events, like how evolution is applied in medicine, to predict virus mutations. Nobody's claiming it's perfect or unchanging, but the method is a sure fire way to learn more, even if we don't get it 100% right every time.


This brings me back to my comments regarding critical thinking. None of you actually do it!
Your version of this could be best described as critical listening. You contribute nothing to the debate other than regurgitated stalled science.


Whereas you have posted your evidence to back your claims, right? Oh wait you haven't. You haven't backed up your comets, big bang or gravity claims yet. You have referred to philosophy, but philosophy is not science, nor does it hold the same weight, regardless of your insults to our intelligence. Critical thinking does not mean, thinking differently than others.


The more you absorb and concretise the information presented, the more able you will be to hold an intelligent conversation on science in general, life in detail, but more importantly, form your own personal opinions.

Oh really? Is that going to help me make such brilliant statements about science like "The curvature of spacetime? WHAT????" and "gravity is like telling somebody to turn a key and start a car" and referring to evolution as silly because you say creatures figure out how to change their DNA based on wanting to evolve. Yeah that's totally how intellectuals do it.


If you can't be bothered to pursue this line of reasoning, please understand why I now refuse to spend any more time paddling through your endless void of ignorance as any self respecting Meerkat would.


I'll tell you what. I'll go through and watch your videos and read up on your philosophy as soon as you back up your claims about the holes in the models you referenced with legitimate facts. I know you think I'm just being aggressive, but I have been very civil thus far and have asked you multiple times to explain yourself in that regard. I try to tell things like they are. I don't sugar coat, so if this offends you, I'm sorry.
edit on 4-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No actually, the evidence is in the things that are made, meaning the things that are made cannot make itself into existence without an informer informing. No mechanism exists for living organisms to occur naturally because it never happened in the first place. This is why Paul stated that those who reject the creator are without excuse. He referred to the heathens, who knew God, decided to worship him not as God, but turned the truth of who God really is into a lie, into a force of nature.


edit on 4-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No actually, the evidence is in the things that are made, meaning the things that are made cannot make itself into existence without an informer informing. No mechanism exists for living organisms to occur naturally because it never happened in the first place. This is why Paul stated that those who reject the creator are without excuse. He referred to the heathens, who knew God, who turned the truth of who God really is into a lie, into a force of nature.



I'm glad that I'm an atheist. No offence, but I haven't the faintest idea what the above means, other than perhaps 'Goddidit'. The bible is not a reliable document and it's certainly not a scientific document. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence for evolution, just as we also have an increasing amount of evidence of non-Earth based organic molecules. Such as was discovered by the Rosetta Lander.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ahh yes the Rosetta lander, your evidence is millions of miles away that no one on earth including you can verify as true but the ESA? Sorry, I don't consider something that no one can see with their own two eyes as an acceptable form of proof. But even taking it at face value, yet again the spin is that we keep finding organic molecules everywhere, and by a giant leap of logic (or is it faith) we can expect these molecules to magically form themselves into living organisms. This is the point I made in my previous post, an attribute of God, being the creator is attributed to nature.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No actually, the evidence is in the things that are made, meaning the things that are made cannot make itself into existence without an informer informing. No mechanism exists for living organisms to occur naturally because it never happened in the first place. This is why Paul stated that those who reject the creator are without excuse. He referred to the heathens, who knew God, decided to worship him not as God, but turned the truth of who God really is into a lie, into a force of nature.



Proving creation by quoting the bible isn't going to wash now is it?

The same as proving creation by attempting (badly) to disprove evolution isn't either.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ahh yes the Rosetta lander, your evidence is millions of miles away that no one on earth including you can verify as true but the ESA? Sorry, I don't consider something that no one can see with their own two eyes as an acceptable form of proof. But even taking it at face value, yet again the spin is that we keep finding organic molecules everywhere, and by a giant leap of logic (or is it faith) we can expect these molecules to magically form themselves into living organisms. This is the point I made in my previous post, an attribute of God, being the creator is attributed to nature.



Ah, so it's apparently all fake is it? You really have no idea about science do you? It's not run by a cabal of evil Atheistic scientists using SPECTRE's unused mountain base. Peer-reviewed science is widely circulated. And the Theory of Evolution is widely scientifically accepted. We don't have all the answers - we've only been looking for the past century and a half. But the evidence stacks up and supports itself. Religion relies on faith and has been known to deny science that later turned out to be true. So you'll excuse me if I place more credence in science than in religion.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

point1
I am a confirmed believer(yes I said that word) in intelligent design, which if one where to read between the lines so was Charles Darwin in his later years. One does not throw away a life long reputation because you have changed your mind. Towards the end of his life he pondered on the complexity of the eye and how it could ever be possible for a process of mutating genes to arrive at such a complex biological mechanism.

point2
The second law of Thermodynamics dictates that order deteriorates to disorder without outside influence and yet we are told that evolution creates self organising systems that strive to create order without any assistance.
So which of these opposing views are correct?

Point3
The much vaunted fossil record does not support Macro evolution, yes, yes, I understand the reasoning of incremental changes but there is no evidence and you can argue until you are blue in the face, it does not change this fact.

Therfore it is a faith based theory.


Point 1: Charles Darwin was not an advocate for intelligent design. He didn't believe in a personal god and was more of a deist. That isn't an argument against evolution. Who cares if he pondered about the eye, there are models today that can explain that.

Point 2: The earth is an OPEN SYSTEM, not a closed system, so you are applying the law of thermodynamics incorrectly. Entropy applies to closed systems only, and the earth clearly gets energy from external sources. For the universe, we simply do not know at this juncture. You claim evolution creates self organizing systems that strive to create order, but that's not true. It modifies existing genes, which creates diversity and gives organisms a chance to survive big environmental changes. It doesn't strive for order. It is not linear. Creatures can have many ups and downs in their evolutionary history, it doesn't just keep making things better. You keep personifying evolution, when all it is is the process of genetic mutations and better adapted creatures surviving. It's not rocket science.

Point 3: A flat out lie. The fossil record clearly shows slow change over time and you really need more than denial if you want to discuss it. Not to mention that there is the entire field of genetics which also confirms the suspected evolutionary changes seen in the fossil record.

Yep, you clearly have many misconceptions about evolution. You didn't argue anything about it related to the evidence, you denied the fossil record, and brought up some irrelevant stuff about Darwin and thermodynamics.


It is a circular argument because I am using this example to suggest that if in fact evolution was responsible for creating the eye then why would it do so selectively. Why did evolution favour humans over dogs, or birds over humans for that matter.


Evolution isn't a conscious entity. It doesn't favor anything. Natural selection (aka the environment) is what "selects". It doesn't ponder about which traits would be nice to have and then picks them. Random mutations happen. The creatures that are better adapted at the current time, survive. It's not a linear process that always goes from simple to complex or that always makes creatures better. The environment also constantly changes, so a well adapted creature is relative and today's best adapted species could very easily be tomorrow's least adapted and go extinct as a result.


Why are we not all super animals with every faculty at it's pinnacle of perfection, why don't humans live to be a thousand years of age, screw evolution, we got a raw deal. Unless something else decided the order of things of course.

Because evolution does not work like that. For somebody that acts like he knows about the science, you sure don't seem to have a grasp on how it works. Why would everything achieve perfection? Evolution is essentially trial and error with genes. Mutations happen every generation. If they are fortunate enough to have traits conducive to the environment they live in, they are more likely to survive than the others. If there is no need for a species to adapt or change, they will not because organisms that have changes that aren't adaptable generally die out. A human isn't going to suddenly sprout wings because they like that idea. Evolution follows the environment, nothing else.



Hello again KrazySh0t, Where is the evidence that life can arise from nothing, Panspermia has some merit but Abiogenesis is simply not possible.


Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and it doesn't say that life arose from nothing. It says that amino acids could come together in a way that created RNA which eventually lead to DNA. It isn't part of evolution, in fact has absolutely zero to do with it. I thought we were discussing evolution? Abiogenesis is still a work in progress. It's certainly not impossible. Parts of it have been duplicated in a lab.

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that your personal philosophy is wrong, or that I disagree with Pythagoras and his philosophy. I'm not trying to say that you are an idiot or infer anything about your intellect by pointing out your misunderstandings. I'm genuinely trying to honestly help you understand the science you are talking about, because it seems there are things you are not understanding about evolutionary mechanisms and what constitutes as biological evolution. Sorry, but I can spot scientific ignorance a mile a way, which is why I responded to you so quickly and precisely when you first entered the thread making ridiculous generalizations about scientific theories. My purpose is to deny ignorance.
edit on 4-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I don`t have to disprove evolution, the evolutionists are doing that for me just fine with their endless circular arguments of organic molecules and micro mechanical processes, very amusing indeed.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ahh yes the Rosetta lander, your evidence is millions of miles away that no one on earth including you can verify as true but the ESA? Sorry, I don't consider something that no one can see with their own two eyes as an acceptable form of proof. But even taking it at face value, yet again the spin is that we keep finding organic molecules everywhere, and by a giant leap of logic (or is it faith) we can expect these molecules to magically form themselves into living organisms. This is the point I made in my previous post, an attribute of God, being the creator is attributed to nature.



You don't and won't consider anything which may interfere with your belief acceptable whether you could see it or not.
I think we've gathered that.

You missed out a step though, a very important one.
The organic molecules have been formed by combining a carbon atom with another element.
So the chain has begun.
Was it magic that created it (maybe in your eyes it was) or just physics?



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

I don`t have to disprove evolution, the evolutionists are doing that for me just fine with their endless circular arguments of organic molecules and micro mechanical processes, very amusing indeed.



It only looks that way to you as you refuse to acknowledge any evidence.
That's only proof of your denial, nothing else.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Haha yes, I found more organic molecules, so based on how we`ve always known organic molecules can form, with time we will get Lucy, Darwins great grand parent, not impressed.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Try and focus for one second and maybe try switching gears rather than literally saying the same things over and over again. You ask for some evidence of how micro changes can culminate in macro changes. I've posted this 5 times already to no avail. All I ask is you to take a look at EXAMPLE 2 here: www.talkorigins.org... . Note that every claim is backed by peer-reviewed scientific journal papers. If you can't just focus on this one example and intelligently present anything close to a coherent argument showing how you would interpret the results differently, then I will assume you have absolutely zero interest in actually having an intelligent discussion regarding this topic which you have spent the past several weeks posting in daily. That would be quite sad if it turns out to be the case. Realize that these are not simply empty claims, but real science, and you will need to put on your thinking cap. I would not be surprised if once you start reading some of the anatomy and physiology terms, you become confused and give-up, and say some generic thing that you have been saying all along. All I want for you to do is to read the example, and give me your analysis of why you think this is not evidence for macroevolution. It's very simple man



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

And this goes to anybody on this thread who is arguing against evolution. These are the types of discussions that we SHOULD be having on this forum. It's really turned into a complete #-show, and if we can get back on track and actually try and analyze claims of evidence and have an intellectual discussion about them, then maybe this thread can finally get somewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join