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: 50
13
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

He is trustworthy ?
What do they call that when you attack the person and not the message again

What a hypocrit

So you going to vote the trustworthy Hillary, trump, or the other trustworthy politicians

Yeah, the Kent Hovind who stopped Dawkins and Hitchens debating in public, the Kent Hovind who laid waste to so many academics and scholars that none would debate him anymore

You would prefer to call a peer review, a group of scholars who believe in a best guess scenario as the truth

Neighbour, you need to move further away from me if that's your logic




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Then why does Hovind refuse to engage in a print format debate where his Gish Gallops can be broken down and reviewed by professionals in the related fields? Why have his past debates been in front of a nearly entirely YEC audience? Why do even other proponents of YEC reject the validity of his fake offer of $250,000 USD to anyone who can present evidence proving evolution? Aside from the fact that some of the pieces of evidence he will accept for evolution has nothing at all to do with biological evolution. Hovind doesn't debate let alone destroy anyone in debates like you seem to think. He runs a Gish Gallop and then mugs for cameras. Nothing more, nothing less.




I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).


items 1-3 are not a part of any evolutionary models let alone Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is on public record that he has been convicted for dishonesty. Thus he has been judged as a lair. That is a fact, not an accusation.

Neigbhour, I am not going to vote for anyone. As I am not a US citizen. I am a permanent resident, but stopped living in the USA in 2010. I am more than happy where I live.

Again neighbour, you don't understand what peer review (in the sciences) is about. I will give you a hint. Not guesses. that e (evidence) word you are avoiding, is key. Mind you, I doubt you have done professional level research. So how could you understand?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

well explain it and let me tear it apart
boiled down its a guess and you know it



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Hovind is on public record, break it down tear at it
There is no end to his debates, why cant you review and question it

If you can I will listen

Take a crack at the 250 000

If science can prove the natural why hide

What are you scared of? Finding out evolution is a made up religion?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It has repeatedly been explained to you in this thread. Science relies on evidence.
viz
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

While a Guess is something with insufficient evidence of being sure what is correct.

Thus if I was to try and publish in say the Journal of Organic Chemistry that I guessed that you could do a triflate protection in aqueous conditions with a biphasic. The editors would not even bother to reply, they would bin it. However if I were to provide evidence that one could, say including yields from a repeated series of experiments, proposed mechanisms, and analyses of purity. I would likely be allowed to publish it. It would still be reviewed by a couple of my peers. These peers would be fellow organic chemists, and they would not be neophytes. In controversial cases, they certainly would try to repeat what was claimed.

Thus looking at evolutionary publications ,they generally fall into TWO groups.

(a) Examination of the fossil record, usually with some sort of radio-chemistry dating involved to establish the antiquity.
and
(b) Genetic studies, usually involving an isolation of DNA, and use of next generation (or newer) sequencers.

The latter are much easier to test, as you can manipulate the data yourself (yes even you, if you have a computer with enough grunt, ability with say R, and time to spare).


That is how peer review works.

No where in there is a "guess". It is evidentual. You know ""the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Hovind is the Ashida Kim of the Creationist world. He says he will engage, and places a prize. But he is yet to accept the challenges. As the Brits would say he is all mouth and no pants.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Repeatedly? I saw one clip
I am tempted to list all the YouTube clips of Hovind destroying as opposed to your one link

But all I can say, if you want to see both sides of the argument, see why Hovind was locked up because of his teachings, if you want to see the creation argument explained concisely and clearly, if you want to understand why evolution is still a pseudoscience
If you want to understand the opposing argument and not be brainwashed by public opinion

Have a look at Hovind, education starts when you educate yourself by understanding all points of view

There is a reason that people banned Hovind, deny Hovind, don't want you to see Hovind speak
They are afraid you may end up with questions that rock the foundation of religios evolution

And no, I wasn't addressing you noinden



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress




Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.


its opinionated - thats why there are still debates -if it was a flawless argument i assume there is nothing to debate.

we don't debate whether we need air to survive- because its fact.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

agreed



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: lSkrewloosel

What I will never understand is they want me to believe in evolution, yet they can't even come up with a half baked theory that is reasonable enough to explain life in any form magicy magicy coming into existence from nothing
I can't fathom the Big Bang from nothing, yet again I am supposed to suspend my intelligence and accept evolution based on a few crackpot scientists offering crackpot theory based on old bones. Bones dug up from the ground that don't talk, don't hold any flesh, no idea of age or intelligence, just theory, best guess by men in white coats

It's embarrassing

Still, if that is what they want to believe, that's their choice



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Cypress




Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.


its opinionated - thats why there are still debates -if it was a flawless argument i assume there is nothing to debate.

we don't debate whether we need air to survive- because its fact.


The problem is there is no debate regarding whether evolution occurs or not. We know it happens. We make objective conclusions based on evidence. Evidence is not speculation. The debates on the subject are more or less technicallities as we gain a better understanding of the relationships between the variables and determining what variables affected our history. We know we share a close common anscestor with primates. Thats a fact and is proven with evidence.

The counter argument representing creation does not equal a debate. It has zero evidence to support the position; therefore, there is no debate...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

i share the same feeling - im hoping i was created by unicorns



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Biological evolution is a 99% blatant lie

Yet you still didn't address the evidence... So sad. You think repetition makes something true. I'm guessing that's why you buy into creationism.


Micro evolution, there is no evidence for anything else


Another straw man, but at least you are talking about the right field of science now. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution, they are the same process, it's called evolution. Micro and macro are just descriptions of time. If "micro" evolution is proven, then evolution is proven. End of story.


"I have no evidence, let's have a guess, let's call it a peer review and then it's still a guess but we can say it's more than a guess because a few agree it's a good guess"


Is that REALLY how you think it works? Drop the smear campaign. It's laughably wrong.


That's very silly, very silly indeed

I agree. Your arguments are beyond silly.


A peer review is nothing more than a group of individuals who agree that a person made a really really really good guess


And the lies keep coming! Doesn't it get old after a while?


Go watch some Kent Hovind videos, be challenged


That was probably the worst reference you could possibly make! Hovind has been debunked for 10 years now. He's a snake oil salesman, not a scientist. The guy thinks that dinosaurs were just really big lizards, that kept growing because things didn't die before the fall. He's the inventor of the vapor canopy hypothesis, and actually believes dinosaurs and man walked the earth together. He's a proven fraud and no surprise he went to jail for tax fraud in his religious organization. Shocker.

Hovind's videos aren't a challenge in the least. They are laughable.


I am tempted to list all the YouTube clips of Hovind destroying as opposed to your one link


LMAO. Repeating lies in front of a religious audience that applauds does not make you a debate winner. He's a proven liar. Virtually his entire catalog has been debunked. Just search youtube for hovind debunk. There are dozens of videos that go point for point with his and demonstrate that he is completely wrong. Hilarious that you would cite a proven fraud as your source.
edit on 4 6 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Cypress




Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.


its opinionated - thats why there are still debates -if it was a flawless argument i assume there is nothing to debate.

we don't debate whether we need air to survive- because its fact.


The problem is there is no debate regarding whether evolution occurs or not. We know it happens. We make objective conclusions based on evidence. Evidence is not speculation. The debates on the subject are more or less technicallities as we gain a better understanding of the relationships between the variables and determining what variables affected our history. We know we share a close common anscestor with primates. Thats a fact and is proven with evidence.

The counter argument representing creation does not equal a debate. It has zero evidence to support the position; therefore, there is no debate...


nah, the problem is that y'all been gettin' trolololololled since page 1...

...and you keep. coming. back. for. more.

50 pages of back and forth and nothing has changed. nada. all they want is attention, to be seen "fighting the good fight". that goes for all parties. theres nothing to prove or gain here. everything that can be said, has already been said. all the evidence that can be shared right now, has been shared.

why is this thread still alive. do these people have nothing better to do than spinning in virtual donuts on an internet forum? do you like dancing for the creationists of ATS? do you enjoy playing their games while they point and laugh because you are too stubborn to quit? and then you get frustrated when they turn out to be just as stubborn as you.


edit on 6-4-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Wow Barcs, I am at a loss for words
I don't think I can forward a rebuttal to all that information and technical detail

Oh what, nothing that would even suggest anything, stardust and star water
Anything but evidence, go watch some Kent Hovind and watch the blood pressure ride.
Got anymore links apart from the one already posted of Hovind getting smashed in a debate, maybe Dawkins or Hitchens, didn't think so



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Cypress




Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.


its opinionated - thats why there are still debates -if it was a flawless argument i assume there is nothing to debate.

we don't debate whether we need air to survive- because its fact.


People will deny any and everything. I bet some do deny air. Technically there is nothing to debate regarding evolution. The only debate going on right now is about minor details. The deniers THINK there is a debate, but it's not because they never cite evidence or address posted evidence. They simply don't do the research and then blindly attack the science with fallacies. They listen to preachers or youtube "scientists" dictate lies to them and then they regurgitate as Raggedy clearly did with Hovind.

There is no evolution debate and there never has been. The deniers have less credibility than the flat earth society. It would be different if they actually presented evidence for their side that isn't based on straw mans or actually addressed the scientific evidence for evolution, but this NEVER happens. It is intellectual dishonesty and nothing more.


edit on 4 6 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well evidence is the only thing I see lacking

Where is it, cough it up Barcs......please

Cough your peer reviews up, give us something



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: lSkrewloosel

And that's as valid as what evolutionists believe or I for that matter

Unicorns for you, nothing for them God for me



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

Well evidence is the only thing I see lacking

Where is it, cough it up Barcs......please

Cough your peer reviews up, give us something


what you actually mean is, give you attention. pay attention to you and validate your superiority complex as a believer in intelligent design by watching you stonewall our every effort to give you exactly what you ask for.

you are sooo friggin' adorable. but ive said my piece, offered my suggestions to the masses, and now its time to let your game wind down and die as fate dictates. if you believe in fate.

chiao
edit on 6-4-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join