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: 66
27
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Hey Larry (aka itsthetooth)






posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector

You know it was just the other day I was thinking of that character and when I looked him up his profile was still active.

I gotta say that was some of the craziest snit I had ever read on here an that is saying something.

I guess he got reincarnated.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Is this supposed to be funny?

Why? Did you smile?



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector

I don't eat aardvarks and I'm not related to them. What exactly are you trying to say, we come from ardvarks?


(post by kayej1188 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TzarChasm
barcs man, are you just bored or what? you arent getting anywhere here.


I honestly don't care because that isn't my goal. I post what I post for the benefit of the 3rd party reader. Somebody who may not have an account and is just browsing the current topics, deserves better than reading the drivel and pure nonsense posted by some of these guys. I'm not trying to change the minds of the deniers, I just don't want somebody reading through these threads to think they actually have a point, because it's clear they rely on ignorance of the actual theory itself to maintain their viewpoint.

My 2nd hope is that one day, one of these deniers will actually get motivated enough to address the evidence rather than parrot lies from anti evolution websites. Then we can have an actual debate instead of this constant cycle of explanations followed by denial rather than counterpoints. I greatly enjoy debates like this as well, so it's hard to resist. Maybe one day I'll find that guy or girl.



huh. okay then. cant fault your intentions.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Connector

I don't eat aardvarks and I'm not related to them. What exactly are you trying to say, we come from ardvarks?



Nope...just pointing out previous claims made by you that were shot down.....dare we we go to the DEBATE forums, where we can use facts and such????? Nah....you shied away from that before.........


edit on 7-12-2014 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

paragraphs are ur friend



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connector
a reply to: kayej1188

paragraphs are ur friend


Yes, but he's got some extremely valid points there!..

An excellent write-up none the less.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

kayej1188, My, that was a rant wasn't it, I would point out that except for about two or three of us, this thread would have been over days ago because you can't argue with your own dogmatic views, You won't actually see too many posts where you actually talk to each other. We controversial posters are what keeps the stars and vitriol flowing. I mentioned earlier that the concept of evolution and natural selection is not difficult to grasp and all that is offered by its proponents is evidence via the fossil record, DNA and various dating methods. You may be satisfied with the explanation for Macro evolution, we are not.



but kennyb72, you really need to stop. You're attempt to hijack this thread is extremely ineffective and is not appreciated by many. You too have posted some very bizarre stuff, mostly all of which have nothing to do with evolution.


And no, I really don't need to stop at all, firstly because we are in the origins and creationism forum and secondly because the title of this thread is not "evolution and how it works". It is "evolution is a farce" why would anyone come onto this thread and not expect to have their own fictions challenged. Presenting an alternative point of view could hardly be described as hijacking a thread. In fact that is exactly what the proponents of evolution including yourself are attempting to do. I hope your logic to support evolution is better than your logic in how to debate a subject given this criteria.

I think you have been particularly rude to josehelps for simply presenting his views (not science) because the title permits all views, not just yours. This is something not one of you seem to have grasped, even though I have tried to spell it out a number of times.THIS IS NOT A SCIENCE THREAD it permits science and it also permits philosophy, theology, and in my case theosophy. I think, not to single anybody out "YOU " owe josehelps an apology . This really is why I am staying on this thread, I do not like bullies. Your appreciation is NOT my goal.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Agreed...


But WALL of text never works.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72


My original assertion was that new science is not produced on these boards. New subjects are introduced but I have never seen any new original science.

Well, obviously. ATS is not a scientific publisher, it's a web forum for the discussion of unexplained events and conspiracy theories. No scientist would dream of publishing his or her research here; they'd go to Nature, or Science, or one of the hundreds of periodicals that publish papers in restricted, specialized fields, such as Cell or the Journal of Applied Crystallography. The best you can hope for on ATS is to hear about a new scientific discovery after it is published in one of these journals, usually (though not always) through the medium of a linked news article.

Where you publish is very important in science. Unless your paper has passed peer review and appears in a reputable journal, nobody is going to take you seriously. Cranks and conspiracy theorists just hate that, but it is one of the ways in which the standards of scientific rigour are maintained. In fact, that's exactly why they hate it.


Where is your objection actually to my post and how will it affect my honour?

An honourable contestant shows no bitterness in defeat, and retires from the field with the respect of his opponent as well as that of onlookers.


Please don't be so presumptuous to suggest that our little exchange has settled the argument between God and natural selection because it hasn't, so to suggest I lost my argument is a little premature.

  1. There is no inevitable argument between God and natural selection. They can readily coexist.

  2. The argument between creationism and evolutionary theory was lost almost 150 years ago.

  3. Even if this were not the case, your personal contribution to the argument has been refuted; therefore you have lost the argument.


My definition of God is more along the lines of Pantheism which I believe was Einsteins conclusion towards the end of his life.

You can believe it if you like, but it's not true. You have already been shown that. I'm not going to repeat myself, far less parrot what others have said to you earlier. To continue to maintain this claim is to defy the facts.


I am sure we would get on just fine in real life.

Quite possibly. I'm an easygoing fellow, really.

By the way, your signature


The meek shall inherit the earth "if that's OK with everybody"

reminds me of a line from a song by Sting: 'What good is a used-up world, and how could it be worth having?'




posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

There is no scientific understanding of Evolution. It's never been scientifically proven. BTW, theories can't be proven in case you didn't know that. What this means in English is that there are sections about the process that are MADE UP IN YOUR MIND. Science has no validity for pretend. Science is based on re-provable out comes, not random out comes.

My claims about what is found in the bible in terms of it's supernatural origin is ALL redundantly backed up by other facts, also found in the bible, AS WELL as being found with matching facts in science today. So tell me whats so bizarre about Science matching with the bible? I'll tell you, it usually doesn't. But when read and understood correctly, it does. It's just one of about 87 reasons that tell me I'm right.

It's only Bizarre to YOU, because YOU don't understand it.

Genetic variation has no hold in science. Of course there are going to be variations in our DNA, many things make changes to us every day, but again that doesn't mean that one day we will be a different species.

Explain how it is that humans and primates are closely timed in our DNA lineage yet not giving us any time to mutate? It makes no sense. I can tell you DOZENS of reason why Evolution isn't possible.

And you are WRONG again. The bible is considered to be "A Historical Document."

"Bible the work contains many historical documents"

rationalwiki.org...


edit on 8-12-2014 by josehelps because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Connector

Dude, I have never been on the debate forums.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



Even if this were not the case, your personal contribution to the argument has been refuted; therefore you have lost the argument.


It is very easy to bate a non scientist into an argument, as you did with the three sentences technique you employed earlier in the debate. What you did in fact was take control of the argument by claiming the high ground and forcing me to respond with answers that where ill prepared and not considered deeply enough, After all, why would I waste valuable time studying evolution when I already have the truth.

However, I did rise to the fly and have heard nothing but "Gotcha" ever since.

Now It is your turn my friend and I would ask you to do exactly the same thing Astyanax, and in three sentences explain to me what your argument is against Pythagorean Hylozoics as presented by Henry T Laurency in his book "The Philosophers Stone" As an alternative explanation to life on earth. It isn't particularly an easy read, as Laurency is an intellectual and he pre-supposes his readers to be in possession of a scientific mind. His other major work is "Knowledge Of Reality" which requires deep thought and an agile intellect. So, as you challenged me to study, to argue with you about "evolution". I now challenge you to do the same, to understand why Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect according to Hylozoics.

Go on Astyanax, do the honourable thing and reciprocate so we can compete on the same playing field. I dare you!

Evolution is a farce: Evidence Pythagorean Hylozoics

Great song by the way. At least we share a taste in music, 30 + years also.

ETA: I feel absolutely no bitterness towards anyone here, thoroughly enjoying myself as a matter of fact.
edit on 8-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: ETA



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: kayej1188
"Bible the work contains many historical documents"

rationalwiki.org...




Hi Josehelps,

Just read that link you posted. It was rather conflicted.




There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person or event here)


Ok, I was actually thinking of alot that do not have as much evidence but Casesar, really?




Julius Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julius Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.


It is nearly the same as saying a thousand years from now that Hitler had less proof of exsistance than Jesus.

Compared to the evidence your link provided...




Now compare those to Jesus: 1) The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.

2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.

"A viable theory of historicity for Jesus must therefore instead resemble a theory of historicity for Apollonius of Tyana or Musonin Rufus or Judas the Galilean (to list a few very famous men who escaped the expected record more or less the same degree Jesus did.)"[186]


There was alot of information in that Rational Wiki Page that acrtually hindered your argument. I was intregued untill more and more of the information was 'sounding' pro Bible for Historical Fact. Yet when you actually read the information, it shows there is less evidence than I had ever imagined.

Now back on Evolution topic...

You say we havent had any time to mutate? Every new generation mutates. Fair enough very slightly each time.

I was reading this link which is obviously anti Evolution, but I like to read all sources.
Debunking Evolution

They state that experiments have been done using organisms such as fruit flies where they can go through a generation in less than 9 days. This is a great experiment as we can speed up the process to find the facts. But this test was done without the important factor of enviremental change. You keep generations in a 'box' and nothing changes in that box over 10,000 generations. You will see no change every single time.

It is the changes in our enviroment that lead species to evolve and adapt. I am starting to feel like a few other posters here. That many who do not agree with evolution, have very little understanding in the whole process.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
After all, why would I waste valuable time studying evolution when I already have the truth.


And there it is. Willful ignorance.

Simply classic. Reminds me very much of the OP and a couple others.

I don't need to understand evolution to know it's false.

Evolution doesn't fit into my world view so it's wrong, huzzah!

You guys are just bullies with your 'science' and your stars.

Just another brick in their wall.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I know right lol.
Ignorance it is.
Funny how every religion going accepts evolution but some Christians do not (mainly in the USA also).
I blame the education system or the parents.
Sad thing is these people will breed and brainwash their kids to not read and not evaluate information, they will just say God did it...or The Bible says this and the word of the Bible is the truth.

Good to see the site owner discussing creation threads being thrown in the hoax bin seeing he understands the science and such.
edit on 8-12-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer




And there it is. Willful ignorance.

Simply classic. Reminds me very much of the OP and a couple others.

I don't need to understand evolution to know it's false.

Evolution doesn't fit into my world view so it's wrong, huzzah!

You guys are just bullies with your 'science' and your stars.

Just another brick in their wall.



Equally as your own wilful ignorance of the reality of life as explained by Henry T Laurency Link provided so that you have no excuse for your ignorance.



I don't need to understand evolution to know it's false.


And please don't misquote me to strengthen your argument, I understand evolution theory but I don't need to understand the technicalities to decided whether it is correct or not.

edit on 8-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: added line



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Your assumption that I didn't read your link pages ago is duly noted.


originally posted by: kennyb72
And please don't misquote me to strengthen your argument, I understand evolution theory but I don't need to understand the technicalities to decided whether it is correct or not.

Those weren't quotes by you or direct quotes from anyone.

They were just things I said that reflect the general mindset of some people.
edit on 12-8-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join