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: 95
27
<< 92  93  94    96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Another disappearance act from someone who can't respond intelligently.

You prefer to engage in rhetorical chaos that has nothing to do with real science. You're playing a game of hide and seek - you hide when others seek (or ask). You are very transparent.


No, just busy, and haven't been on here posting in ages. I consider a lot of the pro-evolution arguments to be chaotic and to have nothing to do with real science.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Good Job. keep these DIRTY atheists "honest". Bravo.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   


Evolution is a farce: Evidence


California? democrats? Pop culture?

absolute proof that more complex organisms do no arise from simpler more primitive creatures but that the reverse is often true true.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Dear LadyGreenEyes,

May I make a suggestion without it coming off as sarcastic?

Pray about it. Pray for your God to show you the truth. That's right, I am suggesting you spend some time speaking to God about evolution.


It doesn't sound sarcastic, but what makes you think I haven't? I learned evolution in school. Believed it for a long time after. Further study and careful consideration, and prayer, changed that.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Everything you have stated as a problem with evolution, is ultimately irrelevant to the theory as a whole. The fakes you alluded to awhile back were never pillars of the theory of evolution. The peppered moths, were never pillars of the theory of evolution. The drawings of embryos, were never pillars of the theory of evolution.

*snip*


I disagree. I find it very relevant when the most well-known "evidence" for a theory is found to be fraudulent. Claiming those things aren't "pillars" doesn't change that they were considered key for a long time.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
There is no "missing link" my friend.


That I know!
The wished for fossils don't exist.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
The "missing link" is an irrelevant term these days. In fact there are multiple "missing links" to support the link of humans with apes. The reason there is no single "missing link" for any species is because all fossils are transitional forms.


The fact is that there are no links between the assumed forms. All those horses are a good example. We have what seems like a nice line, but there aren't any that are part one and part another, no gradual changes, as we would have to see. As for apes-to-humans; we are closer in many ways to pigs than to apes. We aren't descended from either, however, nor do we share common ancestors with either. Proper DNA studies show this clearly.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Sure, every crowd has a bad apple or two. And I agree with you people like that are problems. In any field or walk of life! They damage the credibility of everyone around them. Thankfully though, they don't actually represent everyone around them.


Some seem to be more bad than good, though.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
E.g. I give Benny Hinn zero credibility and label him a fraud. However I know that I shouldn't base my opinions on all of Christendom because of his antics.


Not really very familiar with him, but he's a fraud, for certain. That sort, I can spot a mile away. And, no, they are not representative of real Christianity. I don't judge all of science on the antics of evolutionists, either. I do know that they can taint the field, however, just as the phony Christians can, and do.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Evolution is real. It is healthy to challenge theory, in fact that's what makes it such a supported theory.


We will have to disagree there. For me, it's no threat to anything I believe. The processes God chose to use don't affect my salvation. It's just a matter of looking for accuracy and honesty, and seeing through faulty assumptions. Those can even be well-meaning. They often are. I just don't believe it's valid. Good to check, sure, but when the evidence doesn't add up, it's better to let go, and move on to something else.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar

One chimp? One chimp studied in more detail doesn't make for a good representative group, for a solid scientific study. Links to the actual papers, that can be accessed easily, would be appreciated, though. Always loved genetics. Not an expert, but it's fascinating stuff.


How many humans don you think have had their genome fully sequenced to the same degree of coverage as the male chimpanzee who had the highest coverage sequencing in the study referenced? The HGP solicited samples from both makes and females from across the globe for their genomic mapping but over 70% of the sequence comes from one male donor from Buffallo NY. As for links to the papers I read you're welcome to subscribe to any number of journals that will five


With all of the genetic variation among individuals, using one specimen, and building that on a human framework, assuming that they are similar, isn't a real study. It's a farce.


originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
Citations would be hard to come by, because anything that disagrees is considered "creationist" and disregarded by many people.


Or another way to say it is that there are no bid papers supporting the topic. If the evidence is there and supports your claim and can be Independantly verified and repeated by others then it would be considered valid. That's exactly how it works. Science isn't a person and has no agenda. There's truth and there's fiction. If the data can be repeated Independantly following the same route taken by the initial research then it's a valid study plain and simple.


Nonsense. People lose careers when they buck the system, especially in that field. That isn't how it should work, but it is how it does work. If you call that working. I don't.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
And, yes, studies done to support evolution are evolutionist studies.


Sorry. That's just whackadoodle. Studies aren't done to support evolution and are not begun with the bias you continuously imply. Studies are done to get answers and results. Then the results are published so others can scrutinize the data. A comparative genomic study us just that, a comparison of more than one genome whether it be members of the same species or members of varrying species. The results are what they are. You're welcome to do your own study and attempt to replicate or how errors in others work if you like.


Sorry, but that's naive. If you can't see the bias, you aren't looking very hard.


originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
Are you claiming that they did NOT use the human genome as a framework? If they did, as I have read, then that's a problem.


If they did so as you have read then you should demonstrate a citation supporting your statement. There were earlier studies in the late. 90's that may have done so but not the 2005 study I cited not in any newer research for that matter.


Do what you suggested I do, and go subscribe to the sources. I found the information easily. I didn't pay for it, either. I won't pay for information online. If someone won't make the details of a study public, then I figure they have reason.


originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: [post=18823064]peter vlar[/post
I don't have the article to reference now; it was my dad's, and has been gone for ages now. The article, though, was just a start, and spawned years of reading and research into the entire theory of evolution. It was some time into that before I came across what you would call "creationist" writings. The thing that struck me was that science was assuming a relation between all of those various forms, and calling it the timeline of human development, and yet the actual data presented didn't support that conclusion at all. When science is based on observing and testing and reproducing, and the evidence doesn't add up, it's simply logical to question why. That's what I did.


Questioning why is a critical aspect of any research but if you can't support it with any type of explanation let alone citation then the position falls into the realm of unsupported opinion. A simple good search should be enough to locate the information you're referencing. No disrespect intended but you keep tossing out conjecture and incredulous hyperbole but aren't supporting your positions with anything. Heck, you're not even explaining your own position on most instances and staying in the safety zone of generalizations


It was an old National Geographic. They don't have those online for free, though they have sold discs. A source in print that I can't post online isn't conjecture or hyperbole. Look up back issues.

(to be continued)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
The point is that there aren't clear changes in morphology. There aren't links between the forms assumed to be related. There is one, then there is another, with no gradual changes.


Absolutely bunk. There ARE clear changes and even discounting the prolific fossil record, modern genetics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution has occurred and can demonstrate a time frame within which certain lineages diverged when comparing genomes.


The fossil record doesn't hold what you believe it holds. There are not gradual changes, nor is there evidence of drastic changes brought on by mutations, which tend to be detrimental, as opposed to beneficial. And, no, modern genetics don't prove it, either. Data is gathered and assumptions are made. Little changes between one primrose and another, or one fly and another, and so forth, don't prove changes to completely different sorts of animals. They never will. The way that sort of classification is done, we might as well start labeling people as being different species. Seeing differences in genomes doesn't show a divergence, but a difference.


originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
Evolutionary scientists know this, and admit it's a problem.


Which "evolutionary scientists" would Be making those statements? If I can provide a link demonstrating there are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity you should be able to cobble together a list of biologists, anthropologists and geneticists who have made statements to that effect.


Never seen such a link. Seen it claimed, but the only link ever provided showed a couple of hundred, give or take, not thousands. The quotes are out there. Care to read on pro-creation sites? If so, can look some up for you.


originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
I simply take that a step further, and call it a reason to doubt the theory. If it was true, there should be millions of examples of transitional forms, but there aren't. There are "lines" put together of similar forms, with nothing concrete to link them.


Not remotely true. First, as I mention above, genetics alone proves evolution absolutely exists. Second, let's look at Homo Erectus. There are countless morphological variations over its nearly 2 MA existence. There are vast morphological differences between humans of 100 KYA humans from 50 KYA and humans today. The same applies to Neanderthal, H. Habilis and most definitely to the vast array if australopithecines. To say there are none is either a flat out lie or lack of due diligence.


What I stated is true, like it or not. There are countless variations in people today, but no one is claiming we are different species. We simply aren't clones. Neanderthals were almost certainly simply another race, not another species. THIS is proven. Many of us carry the DNA. You can go to the Middle Ages and compare people to today's people, and see huge differences. As a teenager, I would not have fit into a suit of armor for an average man of those years, and I wasn't large! Average height, and really skinny then. Many factors can contribute to changes in a population. That isn't evolution, though. We remain human. Many of the examples you mention are simply old apes or monkeys.


originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
The point of the missing link isn't that t he term is old, but that the link is still missing.


No, there is no missing link. There never was. Every single person or fossil is transitional as each new offspring inherits traits from both of its genetic predecessors and thus changed ever so slightly from one generation to the next. This applies to all known species not just HSS


Well, it's missing, but that's because it doesn't exist. There will never be such a link because we are not descended from a common ancestor with apes or monkeys. Inheriting traits from our ancestors doesn't prove changes from one species to a completely different and new species. No matter how many generations pass, people will remain people.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

humanorigins.si.edu...

Click on sort by age to get a better picture.

Here are the fossilized skulls:

www.talkorigins.org...

The one thing certain about them is slow change over time. You misunderstand a missing link to be some exact 50/50 chimp human hybrid. Evolution doesn't work that way. It follows the environment. Humans share a common ancestor with a pig as well, but that doesn't mean there's a pig/human hybrid.


No, you misunderstand. We aren't talking about hybrids here, but about forms in between, as one species changes to another. There MUST be such forms, or evolution is false. There are no such forms. There should be some 99%/1% the common ancestor/human, and some 88%/12%,, and so forth, but they do not exist. We have fossils all over, but none of those.


originally posted by: Barcs
Events like Piltdown man and others only made future scientists use more scrutiny with findings. These days you usually don't hear about fossil finds for several years because they are running countless tests and making sure everything is verified first.


It's a good thing that they look more carefully now, but that doesn't mean mistakes aren't made, or that fraud isn't still committed. Then there are cases where information is released that disproves the theory, and later there is backtracking because someone was told their career was over if they continued. Look at the very old human remains, pre-Amerind, that have been found, or much older that expected ruins, and you can see examples of this. That's just with human history, but it shows how things really work.


originally posted by: Barcs
The major factor that debunks creationism and supports evolution is that there are no mixed fossil layers. I know that you probably deny the science of radiometric dating, but if it was wrong or evolution was a farce, you would expect major date discrepancies in fossils. For example you'd have a kangeroo and a T-rex dated to the same time period. You'd have a human and a Stegosaurus in the same layer. Oddly enough the fossil data matches up perfectly with evolution.


Ever look at what happens after a large flood? How things settle? How about discussing how the fossil layers are not even in the same order all over, as they ought to be? Or the trees that bisect many layers? Fossils offer more questions than answers. I have personally seen a human print in the same layer as dinosaur prints, and there were other mammalian prints there as well. No, not Paluxy River stuff. That was quite a sight, I have to tell you!



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
My position is that any theory that must be supported ad taught based on lies should be discarded.


Then why do you support Christianity? There have been countless frauds and liars exposed that have lied about it. Obviously that's not really your position, plus evolution is supported just fine without the hoaxes, and I'd bet you cannot find a modern day text book that contains any of them. You are arguing based on the past, not based on the theory today, so you are coming up short. Nothing you brought up is critically important to the theory, in fact science is the reason we figured out they were fake. But of course if you only focus on the fake and do not even consider the real evidence, then it only shows your bias in this situation. You discount an entire huge theory just because of a few fakes? I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Piltdown man was actually done by creationists in an attempt to make evolution look bad.


Christianity isn't a scientific theory. The discussion here is about scientific theories. If you want to discuss Christianity, I';ll be happy to do so, but in another thread, so that this one isn't derailed.

I do consider evidence other than the known frauds. I simply form different opinions. I also reject assumptions that assume far more than is warranted by the evidence. Jumping to conclusions is never a sound scientific move.


If there was, in fact, so much good evidence, why all of the fakery?



originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Strata are dated by the fossils sound in them, and vice versa. Convenient circular reasoning, that.


This is a long debunked Kent Hovind argument and is another lie. You're just full of them this week. Unbelievable. Strata are dated based on the breakdown of isotopes. You haven't studied evolution in the least. You have studied creationist websites about it. If you don't look at both sides of the coin, how can you really know for sure?


No, it's an argument made by many people, and it' valid. Most fossils are dated by the layer in which they are found. As for isotopes, that's a nice theory, assuming you have a closed system. The problem is, there isn't any closed system in nature. There is simply no way to know whether or not the isotope levels were altered by outside influences over time. It's guesswork at best. Assuming I haven't studied but one side is also foolish. I have no personal stake in this. I simply look for facts.


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The other dating methods are error=prone as well.

The error margin is like less than 1%, but okay, they are error prone because you say so. Forget providing proof of anything, just repeat it over and over again until it become true in your head.


Now, that's funny! Less than 1%. Sure, in a closed system. Where are the layers in closed systems that were dated?


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Unless it's a closed system, you can't know for certain the starting amounts of whatever elements are being measured, or what happened to the sample over time that could have added or removed various amounts of those elements. Claiming that such measurements are valid to determine age is thus incorrect. Even with the measurements accepted, the dating is often proven very wrong.


Please back this up with facts.


Those are facts. Please explain why you believe otherwise.


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyesThere are biologists, geologists, anthropologists, and the like that believe creation over evolution as well.


Irrelevant.


Because you say so? Dismissing as irrelevant anything that doesn't fit your assumptions isn't logical.


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyesI will willingly admit that creation isn't proven, any more than is evolution. Both are theories.


Another lie. Evolution is scientific theory. Creation is not even a hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence. Scientific theories require verified evidence to support it, and evolution has it.


Agaon, because you say so? Wishing doesn't make it true.


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I don't fault anyone for addressing errors, but I do have problems with people that wont admit deliberate fakery is a problem.

WAS a problem. It is no longer a problem because they are no longer in the theory or taught to kids. But again, creationist deliberate fakery doesn't sway you away from Christianity so why the double standard when it comes to evolution?


No, "is" is the correct usage. A lot of the errors are still in textbooks, so claiming they aren't used isn't accurate. Stop trying to claim that all who don't believe in evolution are Christian. A lot certainly are, but not all. ID is a growing theory. Same thing, save one states an identity for the designer, while the other refrains.


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I have seen that more than once. I also take issue when errors are known and yet are repeated in textbooks. Or when a creature like Lucy, known to be a knuckle walker, is displayed as upright.


The lies just keep coming. You haven't studied the fossils, you are again using creationist arguing points that have already been debunked multiple times.


Debunked isn't the same as claiming so. Are you psychic? You have no idea what I have and haven't studied. Don't assume. I notice you void discussing Lucy. Typical.


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Lady, you're going to have to do better than using debunked creationist arguments from 10 years ago if you wish to debate evolution. You still have not addressed the actual evidence and have not presented a single thing that conflicts with evolution. You have also not answer the question of why mutations do not add up. Any day now.


Was the display corrected to show a knuckle walking ape or monkey? Didn't think so. Mutations are not typically beneficial, and they don't tend to occur in groups that are mutually beneficial, either. All the evidence shows this. YOU haven't explained how mutations could actually change a thing to a completely new species.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
ID is a growing theory. Same thing, save one states an identity for the designer, while the other refrains.


ID was coined in 1984, and since then it has produced absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim of design.

It's creationism in a cheap lab coat, based entirely on a book of superstitions, and it's about as far away from a scientific theory as you could possible get.



I have personally seen a human print in the same layer as dinosaur prints, and there were other mammalian prints there as well. No, not Paluxy River stuff. That was quite a sight, I have to tell you!


Even the most ardent and fanatic creationists have stopped making attempting to make claims like this as they don't stand up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Well to be fair (and blunt) perhaps it was in that "old issue of National Geographic". I could cite some very old Journals of Organic Chemistry when I publish, and ignore anything new that contradicts anything I am trying to show. I'd be rejected from publishing, as it would be a logical fallacy, and also dishonest, but I COULD do it



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No, you misunderstand. We aren't talking about hybrids here, but about forms in between, as one species changes to another. There MUST be such forms, or evolution is false. There are no such forms. There should be some 99%/1% the common ancestor/human, and some 88%/12%,, and so forth, but they do not exist. We have fossils all over, but none of those.


Sorry, but this is simply not true. Evolution is not linear, which is why you don't see exact 50/50 combos, or expect to see an exact progression from 88/12 to 90/10 to 100. It simply does not work that way and when you look at human and chimp DNA is something like 97% the same. If you go back to the common ancestor, they were 100% the same. So basically you have 2 species that branched off and went from 100% the same to 97% the same. There is no need for an exact combo of the 2 species.

Claiming that transitional species don't exist is flat out wrong. How do you explain the 20 different species of hominid in the past few million years? The further back you go the more "apelike" they become.


originally posted by: Barcs
It's a good thing that they look more carefully now, but that doesn't mean mistakes aren't made, or that fraud isn't still committed. Then there are cases where information is released that disproves the theory, and later there is backtracking because someone was told their career was over if they continued. Look at the very old human remains, pre-Amerind, that have been found, or much older that expected ruins, and you can see examples of this. That's just with human history, but it shows how things really work.


Unfortunately, all of those old human remains that didn't fit the evolutionary picture have been exposed as hoaxes, so you need to do better than bringing up old debunked stuff. There haven't been any evolution hoaxes in more than 50 years. In the same light the creationist hoaxes in that same time have been off the charts.


originally posted by: Barcs
Ever look at what happens after a large flood? How things settle? How about discussing how the fossil layers are not even in the same order all over, as they ought to be? Or the trees that bisect many layers? Fossils offer more questions than answers. I have personally seen a human print in the same layer as dinosaur prints, and there were other mammalian prints there as well. No, not Paluxy River stuff. That was quite a sight, I have to tell you!


Please post scientific evidence that shows fossil layers out of order. Please be sure that it is backed by science, not a creationist website claim. There was never a worldwide flood, if so there would be direct evidence in the fossil layers, but there is nothing.

Please post a link to the human footprint that isn't a known hoax. If you are just arbitrarily stating you saw one without being a a geology expert or paleontologist, I'm sorry, but I've seen an invisible pink elephant, and you can't prove I didn't!


Christianity isn't a scientific theory. The discussion here is about scientific theories. If you want to discuss Christianity, I';ll be happy to do so, but in another thread, so that this one isn't derailed.


The point was that there are countless hoaxes and frauds in Christianity, way more than evolution, but it hasn't wavered your faith. But the evolution hoaxes make you not believe it. It sounds like double standards to me. I am not discussing Christianity, I'm discussing your standards of belief which seem to conflict.


I do consider evidence other than the known frauds. I simply form different opinions. I also reject assumptions that assume far more than is warranted by the evidence. Jumping to conclusions is never a sound scientific move.


Good thing evolution doesn't jump to conclusions, then. You do realize that no evidence whatsoever has conflicted with evolution in the 150+ years it has been studied, right? There are dozens upon dozens of things that could falsify evolution in a heartbeat, but the more we look, the more supportive evidence we find, even in completely different fields of science.


No, it's an argument made by many people, and it' valid. Most fossils are dated by the layer in which they are found.

Yes, and the rock in that said layer is dated or has been dated in the past. You implied that the layers were also dated based on the fossils, and not by testing the rock for isotope decay. That is completely wrong.


As for isotopes, that's a nice theory, assuming you have a closed system. The problem is, there isn't any closed system in nature. There is simply no way to know whether or not the isotope levels were altered by outside influences over time. It's guesswork at best. Assuming I haven't studied but one side is also foolish. I have no personal stake in this. I simply look for facts.


The only guesswork is you guessing that isotope levels can be altered by outside influences. Do you have any science that shows this to be true or are you just guessing?

Every argument you bring up is a debunked Kent Hovind argument, which is why I'm suggesting you haven't studied the actual theory of modern synthesis, you have only read creationist criticisms about it. I also have no personal stakes in this, I just agree with and trust science because it gets us where we need to go. It may not be perfect and know everything right off the bat, but it helps us paint a picture and keep us heading in the right direction.


Those are facts. Please explain why you believe otherwise.


I have never read a scientific paper that claims the decay rate of isotopes in fossilized rock can be slowed down or sped up. If you have seen one, I'd be interested in reading it.


Because you say so? Dismissing as irrelevant anything that doesn't fit your assumptions isn't logical.


It had nothing to do with assumptions. You used the appeal to authority fallacy. The personal faith of a scientist has nothing to do with the validity of the science itself, nor does it suggest that creation is scientifically valid.


Agaon, because you say so? Wishing doesn't make it true.


I don't just say things because they sound cool.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Read about what it means. It doesn't mean it's "just a theory" equally valid to the creationism hypothesis. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by scientific evidence. Creationism is an unsubstantiated hypothesis at best with no supporting objective evidence whatsoever, so it does not even come close to qualifying as a scientific theory. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the way it is, and not just because I say so, because that's what the words mean in science.

............................more below:.................



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

No, "is" is the correct usage. A lot of the errors are still in textbooks, so claiming they aren't used isn't accurate. Stop trying to claim that all who don't believe in evolution are Christian. A lot certainly are, but not all. ID is a growing theory. Same thing, save one states an identity for the designer, while the other refrains.


Please link me to a modern scientific textbook, currently used in the classroom TODAY, that uses Piltdown man or other known hoaxes as evidence for evolution. You seem very sure of this, but I highly doubt you find or source anything, because you never do. Again, give me a link to the book itself, not a creationist website.

I have not ever claimed that only Christians don't believe in evolution. It's only a small minority of Christians that are bible literalists. There are others, ie fundamentalist muslims, ancient alien theorists and others that deny evolution as well.

ID is not growing, it's not even a theory. Heck, you can't even call it a hypothesis, as it is a complete guess, not even based on any prior evidence. ID has not brought anything new to the table in the past decade. No science, no research, no independent studies. Only lies about evolution, creationist museums, and the same tireless arguments that have been debunked over and over again.


Debunked isn't the same as claiming so. Are you psychic? You have no idea what I have and haven't studied. Don't assume. I notice you void discussing Lucy. Typical.


So prove your side then. Post a scientific research paper that suggests Lucy was a knuckle walker. Go ahead, post a non creationist source that claims this.

Lady, we've run this marathon before. The problem is you can't back up any claims you make with legitimate sources. You only reference biased creationist websites that post debunked lies. So lets see if you actually back up the claims I requested. I very much doubt you will.
edit on 11-3-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
ID was coined in 1984, and since then it has produced absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim of design.

It's creationism in a cheap lab coat, based entirely on a book of superstitions, and it's about as far away from a scientific theory as you could possible get.


That's your opinion. Any actual facts to offer?


originally posted by: Prezbo369
Even the most ardent and fanatic creationists have stopped making attempting to make claims like this as they don't stand up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny.


I am neither making nor attempting to make a claim; I am stating a fact. I have seen the print myself. As for scientific scrutiny, even though other prints at the site have been verified, scientists refuse to come and look at this one. Didn't stop someone from trying to destroy it, however. What a coincidence, eh?



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The simple fact is there aren't ANY forms in between. It's also not true that our DNA is 87% the same as a chimp's.

The so-called "hominids" are nothing but people for the later ones, and apes and monkeys for the rest. Labeling them as human ancestors doesn't make it so. It's guesswork and wishful thinking.

I wasn't talking about debunked remains of "old humans", but actual remains of REAL humans, fro various races,found all over the Americas, and far older than it was once believed there were people present. That example isn't evolution-related; it's simply given to show how the status quo interferes with real science and research.

"Post a link"? I can't post a link to something I saw in person almost 20 years ago. The people who own the site never sought publicity for it, as they preferred to have it remain intact, and not be destroyed. If they have since decided to post online bout it, then happy hunting. You can choose to disbelieve it if you wish. I know what I saw.

You are attempting to compare spiritual beliefs with scientific ones, and they aren't the same. If you can't stay on topic, I won't continue to respond. Clear enough?

That's flat out ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

You seem to have real issues with Hovind. Perhaps you should start a thread for those elsewhere.

Evolution is not a proven theory, and it never will be.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That's your opinion. Any actual facts to offer?


The lack of any kind of new discovery or information from those describing themselves as ID proponents in the past 30 years is evidence enough.

That is unless you can point to something?


I am neither making nor attempting to make a claim; I am stating a fact. I have seen the print myself.


No yeah sure you 'saying' you've seen man footprints alongside dinosaurs is pure fact! this is a great example of the kind of scientific standards creationists adhere to. 'A seens it! that all y'all need to know!'...


As for scientific scrutiny, even though other prints at the site have been verified, scientists refuse to come and look at this one. Didn't stop someone from trying to destroy it, however. What a coincidence, eh?


You've displayed just how much you know about science and scientific scrutiny to the point where it's almost understandable how someone else could fill your head with such nonsense.

Damned scientists and science lovers trying to destroy prehistoric footprints to ensure gawd doesn't enter the picture cos scientists hate gawd......right?



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

More Kent Hovind arguments and nothing to back any of it up. I specifically ask you to back up your claims against evolution with facts and you can't do it. All you did was make more claims on top of the originals.

By all means, describe this human footprint you witnessed along with your relevant expertise on the subject. Please explain exactly how and why you know it is human footprint and what factors you studied to influence this decision. You have an opportunity to prove yourself credible and shine here. Don't squander it.

Accusing me of being off topic is laughable, when you pretty much ignored the bulk of my prior response and couldn't even back up a word of it with facts despite multiple requests. I exposed your double standards based on how you choose what you believe to be true, I didn't compare the beliefs themselves.

Hovind is a proven liar and fraud. Defending him is defending a convicted criminal, and I'm not exaggerating. Virtually every claim he has made about evolution and dinosaurs living with humans has been proven wrong.


Evolution is not a proven theory, and it never will be.


Your faith in that statement is unwavering. I get that, but to really argue against evolution you need to familiarize yourself with the actual science, not just believe something you heard from a convicted felon and proven liar like Hovind.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
We need one of those workplace safety signs for this forum:

"It's been __ days since a creationist has misunderstood and misrepresented the theory of and evidence for evolution in a ham-fisted attempt to debunk it".

Although, to be fair, it would never need to be changed from 0.
edit on 12-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Barcs

The simple fact is there aren't ANY forms in between.


That's either a flat out lie or willful ignorance to state that as your conclusion.


It's also not true that our DNA is 87% the same as a chimp's.


This one Ill give you. Its more like 98%


The so-called "hominids" are nothing but people for the later ones, and apes and monkeys for the rest. Labeling them as human ancestors doesn't make it so. It's guesswork and wishful thinking.


Please, tell me which "so called hominids" fall into which categories then? What exactly makes it all guesswork?


I wasn't talking about debunked remains of "old humans", but actual remains of REAL humans, fro various races,found all over the Americas, and far older than it was once believed there were people present. That example isn't evolution-related; it's simply given to show how the status quo interferes with real science and research.


Could you please be more specific as to what your are claiming happened? It would be much easier to address a specific issue instead of issuing a blanket statement. Which races of humans have been found all over the Americas, where were they allegedly found and how old are the supposed to be?


"Post a link"? I can't post a link to something I saw in person almost 20 years ago. The people who own the site never sought publicity for it, as they preferred to have it remain intact, and not be destroyed. If they have since decided to post online bout it, then happy hunting. You can choose to disbelieve it if you wish. I know what I saw.


You can't dispute science with faith. And that's exactly what your doing, asking people to believe your story on faith because you have nothing to support or back up your claims. No pictures of these alleged footprints? A location for where they are supposed to be? Any sort of information at all? As vague as you're being, its hard to believe that the site exists at all let alone what measurements and testing you took to ascertain the origin of said footprints aside from a brief visual survey. Can you describe how you determined they were from humans? Which mammalian prints were also there per your claim?


You are attempting to compare spiritual beliefs with scientific ones, and they aren't the same. If you can't stay on topic, I won't continue to respond. Clear enough?


Is it off topic because it actually hits home and you don't want to properly address it? Besides, you aren't backing up your claims with citations, you're just making blanket statements that you expect to be taken on faith so by your own words you're a massive hypocrite.


That's flat out ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.


Is this a rebuttal regarding dating techniques? If there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, why not cite it and demonstrate your position?


You seem to have real issues with Hovind. Perhaps you should start a thread for those elsewhere.


There are plenty of threads discussing Hovind specifically on ATS. Bringing him up is actually quite relevant if you are indeed basing your position on his writings and not engaging in proper due dilligence which I hate to do, but must assume, that is the case because you haven't supported your statements.


Evolution is not a proven theory, and it never will be.


Except that everyone working in the biological sciences is aware that evolution is a fact. The only real dispute is amongst those who are YEC's. actually, let me correct that. I don't have recent figures but in 1987, out of 480,000 earth and life scientists in the US, only 400 did not believe in evolution. That is .0008%. Its such a minuscule number that its not even worth bothering with.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
What you say publicly to appease a certain demographic ( the german populace ) and what you really feel, believe, and practice are 2 very different things....As with most evil people, they are but a wolf in sheeps clothing..i hope you realize nothing you said here had any amount of actual truth in it or relevant weight...Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars...


Hitler was an occultist and was big into madame Blavatsky and the Thule society which were about as Christian as those making up ISIS...

sorry I tohught this was a new thread and did not relaize it was 95 pages long...if someone else already said what I said..apologies
edit on 12-3-2015 by wyrmboy12 because: N/a



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

More Kent Hovind arguments and nothing to back any of it up. I specifically ask you to back up your claims against evolution with facts and you can't do it. All you did was make more claims on top of the originals.

By all means, describe this human footprint you witnessed along with your relevant expertise on the subject. Please explain exactly how and why you know it is human footprint and what factors you studied to influence this decision. You have an opportunity to prove yourself credible and shine here. Don't squander it.

Accusing me of being off topic is laughable, when you pretty much ignored the bulk of my prior response and couldn't even back up a word of it with facts despite multiple requests. I exposed your double standards based on how you choose what you believe to be true, I didn't compare the beliefs themselves.

Hovind is a proven liar and fraud. Defending him is defending a convicted criminal, and I'm not exaggerating. Virtually every claim he has made about evolution and dinosaurs living with humans has been proven wrong.


Evolution is not a proven theory, and it never will be.


Your faith in that statement is unwavering. I get that, but to really argue against evolution you need to familiarize yourself with the actual science, not just believe something you heard from a convicted felon and proven liar like Hovind.


First off, nothing I got came from Hovind. Your obsession with that person and your assumptions are becoming quite old. Second, the man was put in jail because of trumped up tax filing charges, not any real criminal activity. So, give the "Hovind sad it so it isn't true" argument a rest, or expect to be ignored.

As for the footprint, it looked like a human print, like I can make in the sand, though a size smaller, give or take, and in stone. Not cement, but stone. Any person of adult age can easily ID a human footprint. That takes no special expertise. If you think otherwise, I can't help you. The print, at the time I saw it (summer of '95, I think), had not been verified, because the scientists that did verify dino prints at the same site refused to even come look at it. Based on my impressions of the location owner (and I tend to be very accurate on those), this wasn't some fake set up for attention. They didn't at the time even advertise this, and I presume that's the case now, since there seems to be no data online about it. I have looked. We did not, as a family group visiting the location, do scientific analysis on this, of course.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 92  93  94    96 >>

log in

join