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.

 

Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

page: 19
20
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: lifecitizen
a reply to: mOjOm

You dont need to hold Phages hand.

He does perfectly well all by himself.


I'm not holding his hand and I know he's capable.

But I've had these conversations with veth before so it's irritating to watch him use the same tactics again when he should know better.




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

What "tactics" would that be?
I don't see anything tactical in his statements. Just ignorant.

edit on 8/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

You don't have a link to back up this comment (another virtual backbone) I am shocked.


How would I provide a link when those are all Questions????

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking you WTF you're babbling about. There is no link to support me questioning you.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing


the query was how did the mammal come about and what was its first appearance; as a lemur.
What makes you think the first mammals were lemurs?



Everything died in the meteor strike including the vegetation.

Evidence?

Fossil records.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

By tactic I'm talking about the willful ignorance. For example when someone asks for evidence of a statement, someone else provides a link to that evidence and they respond with, "Well, I'm not going to look at those lies." Then they just continue on with what they were originally saying even though counter evidence has been sighted but ignored.

Maybe it's not a tactic, but that's just what I call it. But it's basically someone who isn't taking in any new information which counters their argument simply to avoid having to change their opinion or challenge the new information.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing


Fossil records.

Ok. Then why do you ignore the fossil records of mammals which were contemporary with dinosaurs?



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

You don't have a link to back up this comment (another virtual backbone) I am shocked.


How would I provide a link when those are all Questions????

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking you WTF you're babbling about. There is no link to support me questioning you.

Your mind I suppose is all the link necessary.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing


Fossil records.

Ok. Then why do you ignore the fossil records of mammals which were contemporary with dinosaurs?

Tell me more (which ones and how they link to modern mammals). I am not ignoring anything; can you produce a fossil record of a mammal older than the lemur; give or take 55 million years.
edit on 22-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing


Fossil records.

Ok. Then why do you ignore the fossil records of mammals which were contemporary with dinosaurs?



Because, those are his tactics within a debate.

Ok, I can see I'm just getting in the way here. But I felt I had to say something.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
That would not describe me in the least (maybe the MOST).



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Your mind I suppose is all the link necessary.


Whatever that means.....

Ok, I'm out of here. Try not to dig yourselves in to too much of a rut running in circles.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
I seek the truth from whomever can reveal it is all, no diabolical tactics (not necessary).



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No. I don't have one on me.
And since you won't click a link...that sort of creates an impasse.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Enlighten me; gross ignorance should not be left to fester and spread (the black plague years "kill whatever it is before it multiplies").


edit on 22-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

And yet here you are expecting a different result in this thread.

Why you, and Phage are even engaging in this I don't know. Vet thinks the dinosaurs were wiped out intentially because they ate too much. Enuff said.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No. I don't have one on me.
And since you won't click a link...that sort of creates an impasse.

You should be able to quote the information in that link verbatim if you believed it as a truism (mantra belief). No impasse, as I do not jack my opinions up with what I would perceive another strangers dogma that I do not know. As in a for instance, I 'know you' and listen to you but a nebulous random recommended reading that is in your wheel house? NO.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: lifecitizen
a reply to: mOjOm

And yet here you are expecting a different result in this thread.

Why you, and Phage are even engaging in this I don't know. Vet thinks the dinosaurs were wiped out intentially because they ate too much. Enuff said.

This is true. They were not "PROFITABLE" anymore for/to the system in place (they were destroying the habitat). They were a failure and had to be exterminated. Profitability for the SYSTEM to maintain and grow is the primary key (it must work or the system decays and has to be re-booted by necessary diabolical means). Nice observation lifecitizen.
edit on 22-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Evidence can be presented as proof
But only you can prove whether something is true or not by your own research and understanding of the evidence presented
Others may guide you but only you can prove it to yourself



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Here you go.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
I like the 'skinny shew'. 160 million years ago lived. How did it manage to survive the 60 million year old apocalypse/devastation of the planet; is it our modern day mole and has been in an evolutionary process over these many millions of years (has actually achieved 'mole' status on the evolutionary ladder). One would think it might have evolved into a higher thinking grade of mammal given the years of its tiresome evolutionary progress (through the ages; still just a mole); for whatever reason did not rethink itself into a better being-ness; outcome or circumstance.


edit on 22-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join