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.

 

so you think we pretty much know it all about chemistry? No even the most basic thing

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Same genetically...
Just 100 times as big and anatomically different...

That's not how genetics work.
edit on 15-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Same genetically...
Just 100 times as big and anatomically different…

My take is because they grew larger because of a cleaner (less toxic), oxygen richer environment.


That's not how genetics work.

Thats established. What about the evolving over fifty million years part? Like you say, they are the same today as then?

In fact the early "Terrible Lizard" research thought tusks were horns and all of the species were reptiles, right?

What has evolved is our understanding, not the critters themselves.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


This is not how scientific theories work. There is nothing higher up in the chain of understanding than a scientific theory. They don't turn into anything else.

They certainly do. Scientific 'fact'.

Which so far, in the case of evolution, is illusory.

Otherwise it would be proven. But the fossil record is incomplete, the DNA is missing, the species links, ongoing evolution (man bear pig), the video, eyewitness reports, all as fanciful as religion about it.

Thats where my opinion ends…



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You said:


50 foot porpoises, alligators and sharks are adapted to their environment, not evolved to it. They are the same genetically today as they were then. Just a lot bigger and called "Dinosaurs".


This a contradiction. They are not the same genetically as dinosaurs, yet you claim this is "adaption" and not "evolution"? That doesn't mak any sense.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wrong. A scientific fact is an observation. A scientific theory explains scientific facts. Theories do not become facts or visa versa in science.

As for the rest of your post... You don't even seem to understand the basics of science, let alone evolution.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped

They certainly do. Scientific 'fact'.


The only scientific "facts" out there are Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories don't become Scientific Laws. Scientific Laws are so factual that they have mathematical equations that hold true no matter what values you plug into them. Scientific Theories are explanations of observations and don't have mathematical formulas that hold true for all values. Evolution is a Scientific Theory so you can see how your above statement makes you look silly.


Which so far, in the case of evolution, is illusory.

Otherwise it would be proven.


It is proven, or do you deny all the evidence in its favor exists?


But the fossil record is incomplete,


So? Just because the record is incomplete doesn't mean we can't pick patterns out of what we've seen so far.


the DNA is missing, the species links,


DNA is missing? What species links? The Missing Link? That is a stupid fallacy made up by Creationists and no one in the scientific community takes it seriously anymore. I suggest you do the same. Also, what DNA is missing? Pretty much all of genetic science proves evolution. If you don't believe in evolution then you don't believe in genetics and DNA. It's that simple.


ongoing evolution (man bear pig),


How does a fake monster from a comedy television show disprove evolution?


the video, eyewitness reports, all as fanciful as religion about it.


Yea... No... The above just shows that you don't know how science is performed and built upon.


Thats where my opinion ends…



And what an opinion it is. Of course your opinion is wrong. So there's that.
edit on 15-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


This a contradiction. They are not the same genetically as dinosaurs, yet you claim this is "adaption" and not "evolution"? That doesn't map any sense.

Everything was bigger, ferns, cock roaches, fish, mammals, right?. They lived longer and grew larger for some reason, but have changed little in form from then to now. You tell me why that is. I don't mean the extinct varieties, extinction is ongoing.

Vegetables grow giant in Alaska because of the constant sunlight during the growing season? If that season was year round (the earth axis was different), then life forms would grow to enormous size. No seasons, only tropical summer.

More plant growth, more oxygen, larger life forms. But the same then as today, otherwise?

(imo)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Evolution is a Scientific Theory so you can see how your above statement makes you look silly.

You just looked even sillier connecting the two words, science and theory… whatever, dude.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: intrptr


Species adapt to changing environments. not the other way round.

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

Adaptation as opposed to evolution was more my point.

50 foot porpoises, alligators and sharks are adapted to their environment, not evolved to it. They are the same genetically today as they were then. Just a lot bigger and called "Dinosaurs".


They aren't dinosaurs for one thing. Also, adapting to the environment is evolving. It doesn't matter if you like the term or not.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Evolution is a Scientific Theory so you can see how your above statement makes you look silly.

You just looked even sillier connecting the two words, science and theory… whatever, dude.



Did I? Please elaborate. I'm all ears to hear how saying "Scientific Theory" makes you look silly. Though before you stick your foot further in your mouth I will leave you with this link that you may want to read.
What is a Scientific Theory?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: anton74


They aren't dinosaurs for one thing. Also, adapting to the environment is evolving. It doesn't matter if you like the term or not.

My point was how understanding ancient species has changed from the advent of the early research into whats still called (dinosaurs). The Ichthyosaur (porpoise) was indeed considered a dinosaur, long necked with flipper fins (like Nessie) until just recently.

As one example.

Don't group me with creationists people, I have as mush disdain for their "theories" about how life got here. In my opinion both sides of the same Paradigm coin. Divisiveness rules.

Carry your theories about creation or evolution here as origins of life to your grave. You are both mistaken. Life was brought here.

Thats the only explanation that fills the gaps.

Now you see it, now you don't.

ETA: this is off topic anyway, the thread is about chemistry. Sorry OP.



edit on 15-3-2015 by intrptr because: spelling, clarity



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Part of the problem people have is separating evolution(which we can verify) from the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter how we came to be, evolution is real. We can debate until the end of time about the theory of evolution though.

Back on topic, the claim the "Science is Settled" is not scientific and is nothing more than a personal attack on those doing research.

The OP showed a source and then attacked the arrogance of science. Supposedly the world of science is trapped in some kind of Dogma.

My question is, who made this discovery, was it those arrogant scientists or was it a lost Amazonian tribe that hasn't had human contact with the outside world in over 100 years?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

A porpoise is not an ichthyosaur. Come on, dude. This is getting silly.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Evolution is a Scientific Theory so you can see how your above statement makes you look silly.

You just looked even sillier connecting the two words, science and theory… whatever, dude.



I've already posted up the definition of the term 'scientific theory'. No matter how hard you try and ignore it, a scientific theory is not the same as a layman theory.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


A porpoise is not an ichthyosaur. Come on, dude. This is getting silly.

Nowadays, yah. It was different when I was a kid.

It was renamed. Scroll down in here to the skeleton.

Link



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


I've already posted up the definition of the term 'scientific theory'. No matter how hard you try and ignore it, a scientific theory is not the same as a layman theory.

A theory is theory is a theory.

Good thing, too. Imagine if science outright claimed evolution as a fact… but then "evolutionists" aren't really "scientists" are they?

and thats why they always cage it as the "theory of evolution", despite what many extrapolate that into.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


I've already posted up the definition of the term 'scientific theory'. No matter how hard you try and ignore it, a scientific theory is not the same as a layman theory.

A theory is theory is a theory.


No. There are distinctly different definitions. Stop trying to conflate the two.


Good thing, too. Imagine if science outright claimed evolution as a fact…


You're still not understanding the difference between the scientific and layman definitions of the words "fact" and "theory". Unluckily for you, evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.


but then "evolutionists" aren't really "scientists" are they?


"Evolutionists" is some creationist buzzword. What do you call someone who accepts special and general relativity? "Einsteinists"? Don't be daft. Modern evolutionary synthesis spans many scientific fields. Those actively researching in those fields are what we call "scientists".


and thats why they always cage it as the "theory of evolution", despite what many extrapolate that into.


I'm bemused that you're still not grasping the concept of a scientific theory even after a definition has been posted for you multiple times. Stop trying to attack a methodology and field of scientific research with your ignorant, ham-fisted logic. It's not making you look good.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Stop coming out with such nonsense. A porpoise is not an ichthyosaur. Not previously, not ever.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


I've already posted up the definition of the term 'scientific theory'. No matter how hard you try and ignore it, a scientific theory is not the same as a layman theory.

A theory is theory is a theory.

Good thing, too. Imagine if science outright claimed evolution as a fact… but then "evolutionists" aren't really "scientists" are they?

and thats why they always cage it as the "theory of evolution", despite what many extrapolate that into.


They have said it's a fact it's proven. There is no debate evolution occurs what were doing now is trying to figure out exactly how it works. Calling it a theory as a way to discredit the science just shows a severe lack of comprehension.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Your wrong this is still positive to negative charge. But thanks to physics we realize there was a negative charge were we didn't think there was. In the future before you attack science may pay off to open up a book and learn about it first.
WTF are you even talking about? attacking science. oooooh i must be very very very bad. attacking science. how exactly does one do that?




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join