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: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Hell I'm not quite sure what he is. I just got tired of seeing people touting over his resume. While ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room" Christianity ".




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Tangerine

Hell I'm not quite sure what he is. I just got tired of seeing people touting over his resume. While ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room" Christianity ".


Whenever you see this sort of "thinking" embraced, that gorilla or one of his cousins is lurking. I can probably find a dentist to spout his opinion about aerodynamics and impress people who don't have the sense to realize that he's not an expert in the field. If I found the right uneducated crowd (they'd have to be VERY uneducated), I could probably convince them that I knew what I was talking about in regard to aero- or thermodynamics. It might even be the same crowd. I'd show them a thermos filled with water and toss it to one of them and ask him to toss it to another and so forth until someone missed the catch and it fell to the floor. Then I'd announce that the theory of thermodynamics couldn't possibly be correct or the thermos would have stayed aloft. I'd then pass the hat to help fund my institute.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Yeah but there's a difference between bull#ting and holding back bias to push a agenda.


if you're looking for long answers I'm not normally your guy. There is no need to use 500 words when you can say it in 15.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I just wanted to say thanks to the Op and others for making this thread absolutely hysterical. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that an orthodontist is considered a qualified expert on bullet trajectories and skull forensics. Then the guy debunks himself by not even knowing that there is a natural hole at the base of the skull and calls it an "exit wound!" That is pure gold. And that's just ONE CLAIM the video makes.

Please OP, give us another claim. The first one was great.

OOOh Oooh, I know. Can we please talk about the woman in limestone that was dated as 36 million years old?

Can we get a link to that one, please?

I wonder if people realize that videos like this are the reason atheism is growing and religion is dying. I don't think Jesus would approve of lying to promote his religion. Call it a hunch. People are finally waking up from their comas.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well you sure have been shown up lol.
Again you fail.
I think he will bail.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah ggod point lets move on from the bullet wound (just lol) and now lets move on to the 36 million year woman in limestone.
Links please oh and again you made the claim please back it up.

Do you think the OP will see the error of his ways and apologize?...no me neither.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
people need to know that everything you learn in school and college is pure bull# and the "truth" they tell you is not even a fraction of of what you REALLY need to know.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




You do realize that Man IS an Ape right?


No, I don't. We could be classified as primates perhaps, but definitely not apes. Or is your theory flawed?



You do realize that common ancestry doesn't mean there has to be an exact 50/50 human chimp hybrid right?


You were already incorrect in the former statement, and you're incorrect in this one too. But hey, Stars bro. Who #ing cares about science, right?



You may want to brush up on that science.


You may want to do the same.



20 separate missing links have already been found.


Really? How many times have those theories changed? Based on how many bones, in which stratta? Do you have a clear connection between homosapiens and concocted monkey men? no? Then why are you pretending other people are so stupid, and you are so intelligent?



Proof positive you don't even know what evolution means. But you are 100% sure it's false and have researched BOTH sides, right?


Almost like Lucy. We should just start saying 7 "Hail Lucy"'s instead of hail mary's.



edit on 26-2-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
If the site alone doesn't give one pause when taking into consideration the prestige and expertise of New Jersey's favorite Orthodontist...


Gah. He lives one town over from me.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Barcs

No, I don't. We could be classified as primates perhaps, but definitely not apes. Or is your theory flawed?


Could you explain why exactly it is that humans are not only definitely NOT apes in your mind but also why you only give a tangential "perhaps" to their inclusion with primates? It just comes off as willfully ignorant when every biologist in the modern world as well as every anthropologist completely disagrees with your notions. They are in complete contravention of the biological sciences.

Phylogeny is the relationship among different species. Phylogenetic systematics argues (among other things) that our taxonomy should reflect phylogeny. The result in anthropology is that we have rejected some taxonomic ideas. In the past, many anthropologists categorized chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans together as “pongids”. Today, we recognize that these are not a natural group. Phylogenetically, humans are part of the group that includes orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Many anthropologists call this group “Hominidae”, although others would put this at a different taxonomic level than the family level (the level implied by the “idae” ending).

None of this is especially controversial. We disagree about the taxonomic level – some would retain “hominid” to refer to the human branch, and assign the great apes and humans to a higher-level taxonomic level. But the phylogeny is perfectly clear. Humans are hominoids, and hominids, and anthropoids, and primates

Humans are hominoids. Hominoidea is a taxonomic group. Phylogenetic systematics holds that taxonomic groups should be monophyletic – meaning that they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don’t leave any descendants out. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, more distantly to gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons. All these living creatures are crown hominoids. The Hominoidea includes all these, together with extinct animals like Australopithecus, Proconsul, Dryopithecus, and many others.

Chimpanzees are apes. Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the “great apes” from the “lesser apes”, where the latter are gibbons and siamangs. Do you see where I'm going with this?



You were already incorrect in the former statement, and you're incorrect in this one too. But hey, Stars bro. Who #ing cares about science, right?


No need to be nasty and use epithets to get your point across. If the science were on your side, why not just provide citations to put all the true believers in their places? It should be rather simple to do so... you know, science not stars right?


Really? How many times have those theories changed? Based on how many bones, in which stratta? Do you have a clear connection between homosapiens and concocted monkey men? no? Then why are you pretending other people are so stupid, and you are so intelligent?

Enlighten us...how many times have theories been changed based on new fossil finds? Seriously...when was the last time an entire THEORY was altered based on some new find? Faulting science for giving the best information it currently has and updating hypothesis and postulations based on new research and data while dwelling on anachronistic worldviews from the bronze age, ranting about science and simultaneously failing to demonstrate your point WITH science is rather interesting from a research point of view. It's not next level crazy like taking forensic anthropology advice from the guy who put braces on my niece but this early in the day I'm not terribly picky. But if you would like to provide specific examples I would be happy to explain them to you. See, unlike Orthodontist Cuozzo or any other dissenters in this thread, I actually have a degree in Anthropology and I did my graduate work specifically on Neanderthals. I can tell you from a professional point of view, Cuozzo has his head so far up Jesus' bum that no number of Hail Mary's or Hail Lucy's are going to get him back to the light of day or reality when it comes to this topic and you are so sorely misled on the truth of biological sciences and anthropological definitions and classifications that I'm not sure why I'm even looking the horse in the mouth other than the fact that for years, this is what I did...tried to teach people the truth. You can't sit here and say you've looked in depoth at both sides of the issue and come out believing that science is all faulty. There are far too many dominos in this chain for that postulation to ever work out properly in the end.




Almost like Lucy. We should just start saying 7 "Hail Lucy"'s instead of hail mary's.



what does that even mean? it comes off as a desperate nonsequitor to distract from the fact that you're making up your own science as you move through the posts simply because you disagree with established science. Please demonstrate HOW and WHY the science as it is taught is incorrect or start adding qualifiers to your statements such as " I don't believe" or "from what I understand" to your statements of "fact" because there's not a lot of fact going on thus far. A lot of conjecture, hyperbole and suspensuion of belief but not much fact as yet.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm not going to hold that against you. He's bat S# crazy but I don't think it's seeped into the water table yet.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
A creationist making a video about how Evolution is "wrong" and other creationists calling the video "truth about evolution" is nothing new.

One creationist once told me to watch a video from a Chemist that talked about how wrong Evolution was. I searched a bit more about this Chemist and i found out that he believed the Earth was created in 7 days, the world flood and that man and dragons coexisted. Yes, dragons.

I looked a bit more about the guy in the video of the OP and he made videos talking about how cultures around the world mention the world flood. He mentioned Vishnu from India and that the "nu" is from Noah and vish is something about an egg, just crazy stuff. He also says Evolution is a religion and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution. All of this in 15 seconds of scrolling through the video. I cant take any more ignorance.

To summarize this, that guy in the video has an audience of science illiterate creationists. I wouldnt waste 5 hours watching those videos. You are better off reading a science book for 5 minutes.
edit on 26-2-2015 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

What do you expect? The guy got his degree in Agriculture and a Masters in micro-propagation. He doesn't know the first thing about evolution; but because he has studied some science, the Creationists believe that he is qualified to talk on it. This thread is just an exercise in confirmation bias.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have noticed this trend too.

But I wouldnt call any Creationist a Scientist.

A scientist is someone who looks at the evidence and then makes a conclusion (the color of the gas is yellow, therefore the element is Chlorine). But creationists do it the other way around, they already had their conclusion since the age of 5 and are now looking for the evidence (i believe the color must be blue, where can i find an element that makes it look blue instead of yellow?).

Calling someone a "Creationist Scientist" is like calling someone a "Lazy hard worker".
edit on 26-2-2015 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

I didn't call him a scientist. I said he studied some science. I don't use the term "Creationist Scientist". That is an oxymoron.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My post was about Creationists calling them Creationist Scientists as if it carried any weight. The guy in the video has another video called "can a scientist believe in God". So he is considered a scientist in the creationist community.

There was a video that shows how they cant be called scientists at all:

Watch from 1:30. This Astrophysicist basically says that if evidence came up that contradicted with the "word of god" then it shouldnt be counted as evidence.




edit on 26-2-2015 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Got to say one of the best comeback arguments to the ignorant. Kudos to you and thankyou again. Simply annoys me how people use ape distinction technicalities to belittle evolutionists getting to the point



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Argyll

Because the first code you have to randomly create is something similar to int main() with an opening an closing parenthesis around the code, which is statistically impossible if we are talking about true randomness..... Your lost forever if you really think randomness will produce a working program.
edit on 26-2-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18

Watch from 1:30. This Astrophysicist basically says that if evidence came up that contradicted with the "word of god" then it shouldnt be counted as evidence.




Heh. Translation, "I have been thoroughly brainwashed into closing my mind to new possibilities."



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

i'll tell you what. If you can find a picture of the occipital lobe of the skull from someone whose examined who says otherwise I'll agree with you, problem is you can't



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join