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.

 

Two videos for those who want to know the truth about evolution.

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

So in short, absolutely no credentials at all. Got it.




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

what a pile of conjecture. bring us a hypothesis to test and we might get somewhere.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

OHH Ok, there's a general consensus that macroevolutionary processes occur in the real world continuously and that's good enough for you... Ok that clears that up...

You do realize that there was a general scientific consensus that the SUN revolved around the EARTH don't you???

Can you try thinking please and not regurgitating???? Oh that's too much to ask I know...

Jaden



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TzarChasm

OHH Ok, there's a general consensus that macroevolutionary processes occur in the real world continuously and that's good enough for you... Ok that clears that up...

You do realize that there was a general scientific consensus that the SUN revolved around the EARTH don't you???

Can you try thinking please and not regurgitating???? Oh that's too much to ask I know...

Jaden
And if some conclusive evidence comes along that shows evolution doesn't work in the way we thought it did, then the theory would be revised, or discarded.

That has yet to happen. Do YOU have conclusive, repeatable, testable evidence that evolution doesn't work they way mainstream science has postulated that it does?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not conjecture, it's called logical evaluation... Show me a test that illustrates a dog becoming two distinctly different unknown future animals. Oh you can't?

Show me a test that accurately measures I don't know ANYTHING, 1500 years into the future. If you don't understand the significance of that, then you are lost in regards to REAL scientific debate.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TzarChasm

OHH Ok, there's a general consensus that macroevolutionary processes occur in the real world continuously and that's good enough for you... Ok that clears that up...

You do realize that there was a general scientific consensus that the SUN revolved around the EARTH don't you???

Can you try thinking please and not regurgitating???? Oh that's too much to ask I know...

Jaden


firstly, that article came with quite a lot of references and background that if you would have bothered to read the article (you probably didnt) you wouldnt need to accuse me of "regurgitating".

secondly, i thought you wanted a quality discussion. but with an attitude like that, i was clearly mistaken.

i wont bother you further.
edit on 27-2-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TzarChasm

OHH Ok, there's a general consensus that macroevolutionary processes occur in the real world continuously and that's good enough for you... Ok that clears that up...

You do realize that there was a general scientific consensus that the SUN revolved around the EARTH don't you???

Can you try thinking please and not regurgitating???? Oh that's too much to ask I know...

Jaden
And if some conclusive evidence comes along that shows evolution doesn't work in the way we thought it did, then the theory would be revised, or discarded.

That has yet to happen. Do YOU have conclusive, repeatable, testable evidence that evolution doesn't work they way mainstream science has postulated that it does?


NO, it WOULDN'T be discarded and HASN'T been discarded and THAT'S the problem.

Like all paradigms, it is clung to and held onto and evidence to the contrary is dismissed and ignored, and people who point out the flaws are ostracized and metaphorically flogged in public until they shrink away in shame.

THAT is the REALITY and it chaps my hyde....(sic. pun intended in spelling)

All I want is for paradigms to be discarded and REAL science with non contrived evidences used and for theories and hypothesis that aren't supported to be dismissed.

When the people in charge will be shown to be fools that doesn't and won't happen though.

Integrity is not strong enough for that.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You intended NOTHING of the sort. You were appealing to authority to dismiss the opposition not on merit of argument but on semantic dispersal.

Your intent was to eliminate any legitimate discourse and argument by elucidating that there is no acknowledged difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Then showing that microevolution is readily shown to occur, which would bolster the argument for macroevolution.

Without a separation of the two ideas, one being adaptation to environment, and the other being those adaptations leading to eventual drastic change, there can be no real debate and you might as well not even attempt to discourse with me, because you will lose by default.

The idea that adaptation to the environment leads to eventual drastic and COMPLETE (in some cases) change, CANNOT be tested and is NOT science..

That isn't even up for debate.

If you want to say that the science of evolution (meaning the testable minor changes as adaptation to environment) supports the religion of evolution that those changes can lead to drastic long term changes, THEN we will be on to something.

Until such time, you aren't worth arguing with because you can't even understand what science is and isn't and is or isn't capable of determining.

Jaden
edit on 27-2-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
So you admit humans do evolve? Just think a magical being, snapped his finger and made everything. Well if the body can evolve maybe the brains will someday. a reply to: Masterjaden



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: roth1

You do realize that evolution takes that to the nth degree right??? Not only does macro evolution state that two humans are responsible for ALL of the diversity in modern humans (and other species) it claims that ONE single cell is responsible for ALL biodiversity.

Jaden


No, evolution does not state that two humans are responsible for that. I'm guessing that's what that fraudulent video claims? Well there goes another claim out the window.

Source the claim. Don't just believe it blindly because a video says it.
edit on 27-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TzarChasm

You intended NOTHING of the sort. You were appealing to authority to dismiss the opposition not on merit of argument but on semantic dispersal.

Your intent was to eliminate any legitimate discourse and argument by elucidating that there is no acknowledged difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Then showing that microevolution is readily shown to occur, which would bolster the argument for macroevolution.

Without a separation of the two ideas, one being adaptation to environment, and the other being those adaptations leading to eventual drastic change, there can be no real debate and you might as well not even attempt to discourse with me, because you will lose by default.

The idea that adaptation to the environment leads to eventual drastic and COMPLETE (in some cases) change, CANNOT be tested and is NOT science..

That isn't even up for debate.

If you want to say that the science of evolution (meaning the testable minor changes as adaptation to environment) supports the religion of evolution that those changes can lead to drastic long term changes, THEN we will be on to something.

Until such time, you aren't worth arguing with because you can't even understand what science is and isn't and is or isn't capable of determining.

Jaden


tell you what, give us a better theory. im serious - give us a better theory than evolution.

until then, work on your presentation. brains dont make up for poor attitude.

im out for the day. have fun yall.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden


Without a separation of the two ideas, one being adaptation to environment, and the other being those adaptations leading to eventual drastic change, there can be no real debate and you might as well not even attempt to discourse with me, because you will lose by default.

The idea that adaptation to the environment leads to eventual drastic and COMPLETE (in some cases) change, CANNOT be tested and is NOT science..


This is precisely where you are misunderstanding. Speciation has been done in a lab. Why do you think that mutations and traits stop adding up? Why do you think that tons of small changes cannot eventually appear as bigger changes? Micro and macro evolution are not different and this has already been backed up for you. We don't care what your personal beliefs about evolution are. According to scientists, the terms only reference time. Basic logic 101 would state that if a population can change a little bit in 100,000 years, that it can change 10x that in 1 million years. Now think of 1 billion. I know it's hard to comprehend, but that is a ridiculous amount of time considering we live just 75 years give or take.

If organisms can adapt to the environment, what happens when the environment drastically changes? You seem to think that adaptation has nothing to do with evolution, but you are confusing what it means. Adaptation comes through genetic mutations leading to new traits becoming dominant in a population over numerous generations. Organisms follow the environment, so if they can adapt to small changes, they can adapt to larger changes over greater time periods. If you deny this, you must explain why the mutations and traits would stop accumulating past a certain point. No evolution denier has ever provided an answer to that very question. Will you be the first? I doubt it.

*awaits impending dodge*
edit on 27-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: roth1

Not once have I argued for creationism. I have not stated that I believe in creationism, have not stated that I am an adherent to any religions (organized or disguised as science) and have not said that I am for or against the theory of evolution

The ONLY thing I am against is pseudo science, from both sides and lying to promote an agenda...

My personal theories aren't even up for debate because I haven't published them and am not espousing them.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Ok so what you are saying then is that if you make a scale model out of aluminum at 1/1000000 scale. Then you scale it up it will test not exactly the same, but it will perform even better? You realize that that is a corollary argument to what you are proposing???

So, no, sorry, annnggghhh, testing microevolution in a lab does NOT and will NEVER be extrapolatable out to millions of years or generations while still proposing that you tested it successfully.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: boymonkey74

Yea the british museum hasn't refuted his statements....wonder why:??




Guadeloupe Woman "Guadeloupe Woman Was Found in 1812. "This is a well authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over a century. A fully modern human skeleton was found in the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe inside an immense slab of limestone, dated by modern geologists at 28 million years old.


frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com...

Seems like he was off on the age but he was talking from memory, but he mentions that we know the British Museum has this because we have old documents mentioning the Woman . Why are you so lazy go do some research I found this in like two minutes.


Your linked site's headline story is "The Deluge of Atlantis". I think that says all we need to know about that site. Do you even have a clue about what constitutes appropriate credentials in a field?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TzarChasm

OHH Ok, there's a general consensus that macroevolutionary processes occur in the real world continuously and that's good enough for you... Ok that clears that up...


No Sherlock, the "consensus" with which you take such umbrage is that EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES occur continuously. In evolutionary biology, anthropology etc...there is no distinction between the anachronistic concepts of micro vs. macro. There is modern evolutionary synthesis but there is no micro vs macro evolution.
Even utilizing the anachronism of pre-synthesis paradigm, the only distinction would be scale and time. The change in allele frequency is still the fundamental basis of the process.


You do realize that there was a general scientific consensus that the SUN revolved around the EARTH don't you???


Do you realize that's a drastic oversimplified generalization and not terribly accurate? You're talking about Ptolemaic Greece and a model based on flawed assumptions(that orbits were circular and not elliptical being first and foremost of many) at a time long prior to concepts like peer review, prior to things like the telescope. What was the big push that altered this? It couldn't have been advancements in science like the synthesis of theories by people like Copernicus, Galileo or Kepler could it have been? The biggest hurdle to the extinction of Geocentrism wasn't science or scientific consensus. It was the Church of Rome plain and simple. Religious proclivities won out against science to the point the church imprisoned Galileo for defying the geocentric model favored by the Church of Rome. It had nothing to do with consensus perpetuating an outdated and inaccurate model.


Can you try thinking please and not regurgitating???? Oh that's too much to ask I know...

Jaden


There's some novel advice you should take before dispensing.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: roth1

You do realize that evolution takes that to the nth degree right??? Not only does macro evolution state that two humans are responsible for ALL of the diversity in modern humans (and other species) it claims that ONE single cell is responsible for ALL biodiversity.

Jaden


As macro evolution as a separate, distinct, biological process doesn't actually exist in science and is the sole providence of creationists and primarily of YEC proponents, "it" doesn't say anything. People like you aren't just putting words in "its" mouth, you're creating the mouth within which the words are placed. Either way... "Macro evolution" does NOT state anything remotely resembling your fallacious statements. Please provide a citation for the lies your perpetuating based on sheer ignorance driven hatred of a science you clearly have absolutely NO understanding of. I've tutored middle school students with a firmer grasp in the biological sciences that you have demonstrated in this thread. If you really believe the above quoted statements then I'm really angry at your teachers for having failed you in such a horrid and miserable fashion. Seriously, you were done a grave injustice at the hands of educators if you really believe what you are repeating.


(post by Masterjaden removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

...and REAL science with non contrived evidences used and for theories and hypothesis that aren't supported to be dismissed.

Let’s see you walk the talk:


The earth is probably a conscious entity with a far greater intelligence than our own


…or do you have ‘real science’ to support that this is probable?

I assume you are religious. I seriously doubt you put that 'paradigm' under a fine lens. Do you have 'real science' explaining how Jonah lived inside a whale for 3 days? Actually to be more on topic, how about solid evidence showing that birds actually existed before all land-based animals and didn't evolve from land animals? Genesis says birds came before all land animals.

If my assumption you belong to an Abrahamic faith is in error then I apologize.


Like all paradigms, it is clung to and held onto and evidence to the contrary is dismissed and ignored

You’re absolutely positive you’re not victim to this?
edit on 27-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
How many of you knew we have found neanderthals that have been shot in the head.....and that were wearing armor.....



The missing ?

Links?




There is no such thing as the "missing link". That is just a bad argument made by evolution deniers that has been answered a long time ago.



Too bad corporate controlled evolution holds no more insight than the religionists.

I find nothing even remotely interesting or smart in looking for answers in every wrong direction..

Gotta love the way every sort of cover-up and ruse has been used to cover-up the truth, and evolution, LOL, is as bad as it can ever get.

When is someone going to look in a new direction, awww why bother right, its either this or that to the washed masses.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join