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.

 

"The origin of species"

page: 16
10
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: wisvol



I was saying that you calling me a stupid troll,


Quote me the post where I called you a troll...You probably have me confused with another poster in this thread.
I called you ignorant about a gillion times that's about it.
The two are not equatable terms.


I fully accept the responsibility of saying that, as is evident by the level of which simple, understandable information is rejected by the OP, and how the action of choosing, and admitting, to ignoring people, ignoring information, ignoring specific arguments, is between three options:

An inability to understand the information at hand

A willingness to reject reality and embrace delusion

A troll.




posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

It's down to semantics and a person as smart as you knows it.
You think it's so easy to replace the word God with natural.
But it only amounts to pure and obvious ignorance.
edit on Rpm30616v49201600000020 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I propose this very thread as clear evidence of speciation. What started out as an interesting debate evolved over time, and in spite of some most excellent posts, into a soul-sucking, head-banging exercise in futility.

You guys should really let it go, there is nothing else to be said, is there? Perhaps in some masochistic way there is still something to be gained from it but I would suggest that the cost far outweighs any possible benefit.




posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




Quote me the post where I called you a troll..





Are you sure none of this distrust is fueled by your inability to fully grasp the concepts you claim they "push"?
(...). Yet you keep ignoring them due to your refusal,yes refusal to accept that your world view is wrong.
(...)You don't want to learn anything, you made this thread in an attempt to poke holes in the the theory of evolution and failed miserably because your grasp on this concept is a mess. I want to read what your alternative is to the mechanism of evolution.


This describes a stupid troll.

Unless you mean troll in a Tolkien capacity, in which case I stand corrected.

Not offended though, still reading your posts and hoping for some more arguments beyond description of my ignorance, that would patch it perhaps?



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

It's down to semantics and a person as smart as you knows it.


No. I was under the impression that it's down to evidence. One has all of it, the other has none of it.

'Faith' exists for a reason after all.


originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
You think it's so easy to replace the word God with natural.


No, not at all. It takes a lot of hard work to be able to provide evidence to explain phenomena

I do think it is easy for god to be a substitute, go-to answer for ignorance, though.

Just to clarify, I don't find ignorance to be a negative thing. We are all born ignorant of everything. It's just very easy to say "god did it" rather than to do the work necessary to provide an accurate depiction on whatever the subject may be.


originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
But it only amounts to pure and obvious ignorance.


How is it ignorant if we have piles of evidence that support the hypotheses and theories in science, and no evidence at all to support a "God did it" claim?

If anything, the "God did it" crowd is simply ignoring reality.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj




I propose this very thread as clear evidence of speciation.


Then you are either a fool or a genius, in which case please point me to the evidence to speciation contained in this thread.

Claims have been made, links have been posted, to authors admitting to making up their definition of speciation, a most dishonest and unscientific practice.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I propose this very thread as clear evidence of speciation. What started out as an interesting debate evolved over time, and in spite of some most excellent posts, into a soul-sucking, head-banging exercise in futility.


On the contrary of your hypothesis, I would state that the thread never evolved at all. The OP is still making the same claims they made in the OP. Nothing has changed.

What has occurred is that anyone who respond with scientific information only realized more and more that the OP is either unable to understand the information, unwilling to accept the information, or is a troll.

However, the thread has certainly not evolved what so ever.


originally posted by: Jonjonj
You guys should really let it go, there is nothing else to be said, is there?


No.

Everything that needed to be said was said in the first 2 pages. Nothing has changed since.

I agree, lets all drop the topic and let the troll be content with his denial of reality.

*deleting topic from subscribed threads list*
edit on 6/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Participants please remember:

This is not the thread about god vs explosionsoup

It is a thread about whether speciation occurs, and how

thank you



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
Participants please remember:

This is not the thread about god vs explosionsoup

It is a thread about whether speciation occurs, and how

thank you


Enjoy your delusions and troll baiting
cya



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Well I say let the trolls be the trolls they've shown themselves to be.

That's me out. Ta-ta



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Your argument is the weakest that could be imagined compared to the grand scheme of everything.
edit on Rpm30616v09201600000023 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




Your argument is the weakest that could be imagined compared to the grand sceme of everything.


If you tell him this, he'll know!

Plus, more pages when he may just really carry silently thinking gramps is a trout without needing to know how or why and call it science on if you don't tell him.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Alright, I'm calling it! The OP is either a lunatic or a troll.


I'm leaning to the 2nd one. I just do not see how so many people would be THAT willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

It was funny when people finished debunking the whole "a species gives birth to another a species" argument, and then somebody else comes in and immediately makes the same argument almost verbatim. That's what these folks do. It's entertaining, but I wish they would come up with some new material.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Glad everyone seems to agree that species do not give birth to other species.

Now with this in mind, can someone tell me how the origin of species is other species now that we know species do not in fact give birth to other species?

Tiny baby steps?

Children are different from their parents in some ways not including species, so how do you conciliate the two?

Time does not mean "magic that makes something I admit to not happening happen".

It's the present-past-future component of spacetime and that's magical enough.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

Hah!!!!! As if primordial soup doesn't require magical odds!
You people are a joke! A joke when it comes to the scientific open mind.


Why is it that your only arguments against everything are simplistic one liners that insult anybody that does believe in your magical god? Science is the reason we can even see your lunacy in a public forum. If not, you'd be that guy on the street corner in a big dark robe screaming about how the end is near to a few hundred locals.

What exactly are "magical odds"? You literally believe everything was poofed into existence and have the nerve to talk down to folks that look at data and experiments? There comes a time in life when we must grow up. No need to be the rebellious nagging teenager forever. Read about it. Learn new things. You don't have to become a scientist or abandon your religion, just read about the science and have an open mind about it instead of automatically criticizing everything they say and dismissing it just because you don't like it while refusing to even consider a position other than your own.


It's down to semantics and a person as smart as you knows it.
You think it's so easy to replace the word God with natural.
But it only amounts to pure and obvious ignorance


Nobody's replacing words. They just don't have faith in your god, so the appropriate description is natural. You need to get over it and stop being so ridiculously biased when you speak of things. People all over the planet have different beliefs, nobody knows which is right or wrong. It's easy to put down people that don't share your faith, but it makes you look incredibly ignorant, especially when you equate science to magic and blind faith. It's just funny how strict you are in your faith that you wouldn't accept any other possibility, even if it was staring you in the face.


edit on 3 6 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
Participants please remember:

This is not the thread about god vs explosionsoup

It is a thread about whether speciation occurs, and how

thank you


The thread is over. Speciation has been substantially backed up and demonstrated. Your understanding of the concept is faulty because you think it happens suddenly, in one generation, in one individual, rather than being a series of small incremental genetic changes over time in a population. This has all been explained but apparently fell on deaf ears.
edit on 3 6 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
All barking aside, and acknowledging that reasonable readers may not read through the pages of nonsense, the reasons given for believing in speciation are mostly "fossils" and "incremental changes mean there isn't a first monkey", both valid arguments from a less than logical perspective, maybe.

I do find this disappointing in terms of how this belief is seen as structural to mainstream biology.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The censorship was also eye opening, maybe it's just this particular forum.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
But that's what I get for playing chess with a pigeon.

Anyways if someone ever comes across this way down the line and asks their self the question, no matter how they answer it I suppose it wouldn't have been vain.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
^this guy



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join