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.

 

Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Equivocation? I'm not concealing any truths. I'm simply not convinced we evolved from apes.




posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


You understand neither. Again, that's just ego taking over your mind.


I don't? Hmmm... All that research for nothing because some guy who has demonstrated a failing of the core principles of how science works said so... Glad you could clear that up.


How did I fail and how is it possible for you to understand the universe when we only understand less than 10% of it? Sure, you may have learned the laws of physics and studied theories of our evolution, but you don't understand the universe. You are learning about the universe in a attempt to understand it. Something nobody has accomplished to this day.


Understand the universe? You said I didn't understand the BBT and evolutionary theory. Where did understanding the universe come in? Don't move the goal posts back.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


READ. This is what you responded to . I stated "You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe".

Now you are telling me the universe wasn't mentioned?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   



The universe created the Earth therefor understanding the universe is relevant to understanding our origin.


Biological process......... That went totally over your head I guess.

Lets put it this way. We know atoms exist. We know how heavier elements are formed. We know how star and planets form. We dont need to know how the universe was created to understand this.

Evolution is a biological process that is contingent only on life existing. Likewise, since we know life exists, we dont need to understand the origins of the universe to study how life changes.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


Well? Is that not what you said. You understand both? Then recanted and tried to pivot your way out and claim you were referring to the BBT?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Barcs

Equivocation? I'm not concealing any truths. I'm simply not convinced we evolved from apes.


You said that evolution goes back to the big bang. It does not. By suggesting that it does, you are invoking a different definition of the word "evolution" and suggesting they are the same. You can't use a different version of the word 'evolution' to attack the biological definition of the word. You are equating the 2 definitions as one, hence equivocation.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


READ. This is what you responded to . I stated "You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe".

Now you are telling me the universe wasn't mentioned?


That's a reach. When people discuss evolution or the scientific creation of the universe, they are REFERRING to the scientific theories that go along with them. Not a SINGLE scientist would ever make the claim that they 100% understand the universe and it is stupid to even point that out as a detractor against whatever theory you are railing against. No crap, we don't understand everything. That doesn't make evolution or the BBT invalid and it certainly doesn't mean that one needs to discuss the BBT to discuss evolution.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


Well? Is that not what you said. You understand both? Then recanted and tried to pivot your way out and claim you were referring to the BBT?


Yes, both as in the BBT and evolutionary theory. Stop playing semantics games. It's annoying and a distraction.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress



The universe created the Earth therefor understanding the universe is relevant to understanding our origin.


Biological process......... That went totally over your head I guess.

Lets put it this way. We know atoms exist. We know how heavier elements are formed. We know how star and planets form. We dont need to know how the universe was created to understand this.

Evolution is a biological process that is contingent only on life existing. Likewise, since we know life exists, we dont need to understand the origins of the universe to study how life changes.


Really? So finding life on another planet wouldn't contribute to understanding the origins of life and how it evolved? It would probably be a huge break thru in our understanding of evolution. Do you understand the magnitude of such a discovery? The universe has all of the answers.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




This time try answering the question as if you have actually read more than 5 words about evolution.


Dude, your posts alone give me all the theoretical knowledge I need, what you consider as failed threads, I consider a success, it's called planting seeds, some germinate others don't, I can see yours is dormant, and that's ok.

Actually my time on ATS has given me great insight into evolution, more so than any books I have read or even my own personal research, all these numerous post do is expand my knowledge, about the same as my knowledge expands if a watch a new Star Wars movie, it's not reality, but it is highly entertaining.

Thanks for contributing to the thread



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nobody is forcing you to discuss anything. You claimed to understand the universe. Now you stand corrected. You don't get to decide what is debated when it comes to evolution. Get over yourself.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Have a look here to see many videos on science topics and the mistaken assumptions of creationist idiots, you may also get answers to your questions.

For lots of videos on science and evolution that even a creationist can understand click the link below.

potholer54



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

I appreciate how you are one of the few posters on ATS who understands the total conceptual nature of the link between everything in the formation of matter to humans or from A-Z, and everything between is connected and it just can't be reduced to scientific semantical categories that for some some bizarre biased reason can't be linked.

They are all linked, FACT.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe


That is equivalent to saying that we can't understand nuclear fusion, auto mechanics or information technology without first understanding the creation of the universe. It is wrong. We can understand plenty of things about our planet without knowing exactly how the universe came in being. We do it all the time and make technology based on it that works.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Finding life on another planet has nothing to do with the big bang theory or the initial formation of the universe.

As for evolution, finding life on another planet would be another chance to study biological processes. If the primary structure is different from our DNA, then our principles for evolution on this planet may be somewhat different compared to the process that moves the changes they experience.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nobody is forcing you to discuss anything. You claimed to understand the universe. Now you stand corrected. You don't get to decide what is debated when it comes to evolution. Get over yourself.


No I claimed to understand the big bang theory and evolutionary theory. YOU put words in my mouth to say that I was claiming to understand the universe.

I don't decide what is debated when speaking about evolution, but I know what is and isn't on topic when discussing it. The BBT isn't ontopic, no matter how much you want it to be so.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: FearYourMind

I appreciate how you are one of the few posters on ATS who understands the total conceptual nature of the link between everything in the formation of matter to humans or from A-Z, and everything between is connected and it just can't be reduced to scientific semantical categories that for some some bizarre biased reason can't be linked.

They are all linked, FACT.


Everyone understands this concept and no one is denying it. We ARE however denying that you need to discuss one aspect (creation of the universe) in order to discuss another (change in life over time). I don't need to discuss the life cycle of a heifer in order to discuss how to make a hamburger, but clearly one has to have happened before the other. The heifer has to be born and slaughtered before I can make my hamburger.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: FearYourMind
You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe


That is equivalent to saying that we can't understand nuclear fusion without first understanding the creation of the universe. It is wrong. We can understand plenty of things about our planet without knowing exactly how the universe came in being.


You couldn't understand nuclear fusion without first understanding the physics. Your comparison is not a equivalency either. Just a bad attempt at justifying your weak argument. You can't understand evolution without understanding the billions of years it took for our universe to evolve.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
So basically a few sentences into your post you claim that you don't believe that organic chemistry is a thing.

We are made of molecules, some organic, some not. All molecules are made of atoms, and no atom is organic. To put it simply for OP, when certain atoms combine and attach with others they form a vast array of molecules and compounds, some of which are organic, some aren't. Is that really that hard to wrap your head around? I guess it's easier to say god dunnit...ignorance must be amazing, I should try it out some time...
edit on 22-4-2015 by 8fl0z because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
You couldn't understand nuclear fusion without first understanding the physics. Your comparison is not a equivalency either. Just a bad attempt at justifying your weak argument. You can't understand evolution without understanding the billions of years it took for our universe to evolve.


LMAO! You just used equivocation fallacy again!

Evolution = genetic mutations sort by natural selection. The rest of the universe didn't "evolve". Look up the meaning of the word. It has more than 1 definition just like the word bear. Would you try to argue against the right to bear arms, by saying that it is wrong to cut of the arms of grizzly bears?

My analogy was accurate and follows the same exact logic you are using by saying you need to understand the evolution of the entire universe to understand how biological evolution on earth works. One is not dependent on the other, but you cannot have evolution without life being present, unless you have an argument that stars and planets experience genetic mutations?

If you don't want to talk about the biological definition of evolution (the one mentioned in the OP and constantly attacked on here by fringe creationists), then make a thread about the topic you DO want to discuss. You don't get to come into here and make up your own definitions of things and standards for proving them.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join