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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 28
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Again, your interpretation of my words is flawed in a way you may draw limited and temporary impression of superiority, but nothing of value.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

No the way you are using them is flawed. Selectively picking at information, and taking them out of context is intellectually dishonest.

So again what exactly is your stance about evolution please.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: amaguq

check your PM's



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Neighbour, I don't care what you are

There were scientists teaching people tobacco is healthy

Another one of sciences colossal errors

www.npr.org...

So you may think you are stardust and starwaters great gift to mankind, me I dismiss your faith

Also all I see is you and your comment "I am a scientist" , you make it about you



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

apparently its you who is in the misinterpretation department. I'm not taking a stance of superiority. I'm simply attempting to discuss science with someone who is either incapable of such or simply unwilling to forgo the strawman and stick to facts and actually support their statements. I don't know what your motivation is because you refuse to clarify anything or even discuss what your position actually is while pretending to thumb your nose at science that you give the impression that you don't know the first thing about the topic at hand. Whether you do or not, I couldn't say. Mostly because YOU won't clarify anything resembling a position on the topic while repeating the same garbage over and over and absolutely refuse to qualify your statements let alone support them. The entire dialogue is an exercise in futility.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to not understand a lot of things Raggedyman. Lets deconstruct your argument:

Tobacco was seen as healthy before ideas like tetragenic, mutagenic, etc were known. But evidence built up and scientists moved towards "tobacco is not healthy". The hold outs were people paid by the tobacco industry, and that neigbour is called a conflict of interests. It is not science, and only the most rabid of antiscientist would think it was. Guess we know what you are. Now go back to writting on paper, and using a beast of burden


When I mention I am a scientist, its not about anything, except illustrating I am not a random person pushing my own ideas. It is that I am actually trained. I am paid to do sciecne, QED, I know science.

Also you are using the logical fallacies of Ad Hominem Argument, Argument from Motives, brainwashing, Confirmation Bias, etc Oh and moving the goal posts each time someone lines the conversion up.

It is good to know it matters to you so much.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

So do you

I have a different belief and you just cant accept it

I accept your beliefs are yours, no matter how flawed they are

Get over it, science education, it doesn't help you with repeatable observable and testable evidence
Scientists have gotten it wrong before and are now and they will again

I totally dismiss your faith in your beliefs of evolution from dust and water

and you talk ad hominems and then attack with paper and beasts of burdens

Well done, I bow to your superiority......complex



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




I'm not taking a stance of superiority.


clearly



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No I accept you believe what you believe. However there is a difference between belief (an act of faith) and science ( a philosophy based on evidence). You can't accept that. No where here have my belief systems come into the equation. As I've said, I have a faith, it is not my science. That just is.

You need to show scientists "got it wrong" (I assume you mean evolution here? please clarify) because I shall not take this on faith you are correct, as you've shown yourself to be not understanding the concept (again if this was not evolution you were talking about, clarify (mmm butter)).

Oh and again, my beliefs are not "evolution from dust and water", nor is the science. Evolution is one species to the next. Get it right.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Anytime you want to support your statements with something bey dad hominems and strawman statements, please feel free. Until then you're just another yahoo making ignorance laden statements on a conspiracy forum. That's not a statement based on misconstrued superiority, it's just a fact. You have stated several times that you will not do so. There's no reSon whatsoever to take anything you say seriously if you re I cable of supporting your own statements with facts.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




There's no reSon whatsoever to take anything you say seriously if you re I cable of supporting your own statements with facts.


True, of anyone, and the reason why I take the time to answer posters with chronic impolite disorder way beyond what is actually productive, yet reviewing our conversation thus far, I can only stand by my share of it and wish you luck with yours.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You need to move on

I think yours is a religion, that's established
I don't trust, believe, respect your position, never mind your grandiose title

Now take the intellectual superior position again and accuse me of having beasts of burden and pen and paper, you sciency guys are so cutting edge and hip.
Mankind evolved from stardust and starwater, that's so cool, you keep telling yourself and others that, tell them you can be trusted, don't forget to add you are a scientist and you are smart, probably wont forget that part at all, will you

Take your evolution argument somewhere else, this thread is about your beliefs of dust and water, if they are not as I assume, then please let us know what YOU THE SCIENTIST thinks

Is that butter balls?




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You can think science is a religion all you like, you will be wrong. As I said, I have a religion, its not my science. My religion is best described as nDraíocht, and is a form of hard polytheism. That is not science. Science is science. I know you need science to be a religion, but science grew out of the workings of a great many people, including devout Christians. Here is a sad thing for your stance. Charles Darwin was a devout Christian, and had a great deal of angst over releasing his theories. He died a Christian, yet he was convinced evolution was correct.

Oh and neighbour, this is a thread about evolution, the very title says so. QED If I talk about evolution, I am on topic. End of story.

Next, I at no point in this discussion have said that we "evolved from stardust and starwater" That would be you. What I have said is that we evolved from another species. I have not mentioned my view on abiogenesis/proteogenesis.

And lastly

Name calling? Hmm guess you admit defeat then?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79

No, I think the concept of homo habilis as being millions of years old or a half monkey is nuts, and it has been justified to massacre aborigines in Australia who "kind of looked different" and are not half monkeys either.


Homo habilis' skull cranial capacity is 750 cc on average. Homo sapien is 1300cc on average.

How many people walking around with heads just over half the size of normal person do you see again? You can only keep making stuff up for so long.


What you construe as proof is a series of texts and images, which when analysed logically fail to demonstrate the premise that the origin of species is other species.


It's a series of experiments and repeatable tests. Your ignorance and denial of this basic fact proves to me that you are not actually looking to discuss anything, you just want to dictate and folks to blindly go along with your bunk claims.

Evolution at its core is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Both are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. To falsify evolution, find one creature that doesn't experience genetic mutations during replication or find a single fossil that was out of place in the geological column. Good luck. If there were issues with the dating, we'd have figured it out by now because of out of place organisms. But they are never found.


edit on 3 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Hey perhaps he is around a Zika outbreak? But seriously, these people expect US to provide proof, but don't play the same game. I don't think they get how foolish this appears on their part.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The utter lack of reciprocity in regards to supporting ones statements is really mind boggling. It just makes those who refuse to do so appear that they don't understand the most fundamental aspects of what they claim is not scientific and that they aren't just unwilling but utterly incapable of doing so.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Well I think we all know the reason they don't cite. Its because they cut and paste directly from the various creationist sites out there. I know sometime last year in one of these scrumes, I did a quick plagarism search on a reply, and it red flagged this.

I don't know about you (actually I do I think) but I type my own words in my replies. They cut and paste.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

If I'm copying someone else's work, I give credit and use the properly formatted tags perATS rules. The amount of people I call out for plagiarism... I would be a massive hypocrite if I didn't do so! If I post something and it's not tagged and cited, it's my own words and the information is from memory. Though that could vary depending on the topic at hand. If it's hominids and the evolutionary history of the last 4-6 million years (pretty much anything from Orrorin Tugenesis thru HSS and most definitely anything related to HN/HSS admixture and cohabitation) and something that has been discussed to death like 14c or other radio metric dating techniques, I'm pretty up to date on it. Even then I'll throw out citations for reference purposes because there are some people on here who actually want to learn something.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
does anyone here actually think someone is going to suddenly say "hey, you know what, i agree with you %100 percent. i spent the last 20 pages turning blue in the face but that last bit of rhetoric put me in my place. swell debating and thanks for the illumination"

thats not going to happen.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join