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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't understand what trolling is either neighbour. I will note the moment someone who has an understanding of science replies to you, you refuse to engage them. Weak ego much?




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You do not seem to understand how this works. If you make a claim, (and you have), the onus is on you to back it up. So shall we try this again neighbour?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is not YOUR thread, it is the property of ATS, you have no ownership of it. It is clear that you have some large intellectual gaps in your education neighbour.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What about transitional fossils? Like the Pelycosaur, for example, who had both reptilian and mammal charateristics.
How do you explain an animal that shows traits from two different groups?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I though the anynuckles bred us from cross breeds? the breeds being very cross at being bred, especially as the anynuckles were not sure who the breeds were?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

As I said, it doesn't matter where it came from or who did it, if anyone. The process is the same. Science is about discovery and evidence. There's no evidence for a "who". But there is evidence for a "how". Evolution is about process - how things happen.

If there is a "who", that's fine. But until the hard evidence shows up, we work with what we have.



Valid points, but, the process is what i am disputing. You claim that commonalities/consistencies in genes prove descent through modification, but it does not. commonalities/consistencies in genes would also be expected with a Designer crafting life in a relatively short period, as discussed in Plato's Timaeus and Genesis.


originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
many species evolved, lived, and died out long before anything even remotely resembling a human being existed.


Like the Coelacanth or the trilobite? They presumably were never with humans, until we found living coelacanths.

Trilobite in human sandal-print

also, Soon it'll be accepted that Humans observed Living Dinosaurs
edit on 9-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

I havnt seen any evidence


The evidence is all around you.

Like literally in this thread.

The talk origins site listed 29 individual pieces of evidence in favor of common descent. You have addressed zero of it. This is the sad reality. If you can't do it, then there is no reason to think you aren't a troll. Your biased rants do not prove anything other than your failure to understand basic concepts in science.


I did with the first sentence of the intro

"A theory based on assumption"

You go read it


You failed to address a single part of the evidence, only semantics about a single word on the first page before any evidence is presented. Epic fail and total avoidance of the evidence.

You just proved yourself a troll. No need to argue anything further.



Barcs, the intro made it very clear that all the information on that talk origins page was assumption
I am not sure if you have a learning difficulty or lack comprehension skills or just think to highly of your self
Assumption is not science, it's just a big guess, it's someone postulating ok

I don't have to argue, prove a guess, assumption wrong, it by its own very definition is an assumption.
Assumptions are theory, that means it's not proven science
That means it's not a fact
How can I prove its not a fact, I don't have to, the science behind it makes it clear by calling it a theory
Imagine if I held a bag of marbles in my hand and said I have 42 marbles in that bag,
You said , did you count them
I said, no
You being the genius you claim say. How do you know there are 42
I say. I guessed, now prove me wrong

Now obviously you would think this person is a little retarded, how can I prove that there is not42 marbles in the bag, what a stupid question anyway, and then you walked away



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
So noinden

Here you go chief
I claimed that evolutionists believe we are descendants of the Big Bang, the Big Bang is our poppa

Now let me prove it

Before there was anything there was nothing, see Big Bang theory (I am not talking the tv show where you seem to gain your education😁)
Then suddenly from nothing everything went bang into existence

Evidently, beyond logic and common sense dirt and water was formed, elements evolved evidently, so did the laws of nature, you know, from nothing, pure random chance
Then somehow we evolved out of that dirt and water, it's our non biological ancestor

Is that the proof you wanted

Of course not, no amount of proof will satisfy you

Though to the mere casual observer, they will think, how stupid is this Big Bang theory, from nothing everything came into existence,
how did the elements, energy, star formations, gravity, entropy, laws that govern the universe, life out of nowhere, animals of many variety, love, compassion, thought, art humanity come from mere dirt and water
Just from this Big Bang,
Big Bang, a sudden explosion from nothing that created everything
Crickey, you atheists have more faith than me

Who could believe that nonsense, that's childish, imagine if two kids in the schoolyard were talking
Hey look at this over here in the gym, there was this small explosion in the air and this little universe is forming, if we wait long enough we will see life form, sit with me and watch

The other kid says, you stupid buddy


You are asking me to prove that our common ancestor is the Big Bang, I have a little problem, I can't find any evidence that the Big Bang is actually a fact

I don't care if you do or don't have 42 marbles, I don't care to guess

to you, we are just products of dirt and water, the Big Bang is our ubiological ancestor

Before anything was nothing, then poof, it all came into existence, eventually life formed, we are a product of that poof, according to evolution

And the average evolutionist has a little tatty if a Christian suggests our common ancestors are fish and monkeys

Facepalm



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

As I said, it doesn't matter where it came from or who did it, if anyone. The process is the same. Science is about discovery and evidence. There's no evidence for a "who". But there is evidence for a "how". Evolution is about process - how things happen.

If there is a "who", that's fine. But until the hard evidence shows up, we work with what we have.



Valid points, but, the process is what i am disputing. You claim that commonalities/consistencies in genes prove descent through modification, but it does not. commonalities/consistencies in genes would also be expected with a Designer crafting life in a relatively short period, as discussed in Plato's Timaeus and Genesis.


originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
many species evolved, lived, and died out long before anything even remotely resembling a human being existed.


Like the Coelacanth or the trilobite? They presumably were never with humans, until we found living coelacanths.

Trilobite in human sandal-print

also, Soon it'll be accepted that Humans observed Living Dinosaurs


It sounds like you're disputing the origin of the process, not the process itself. The process is the synthesis of the genome. The synthetic process is the same in primates and humans. The product mimics each other to at least 90% reliability.

What the role of a creator is, if any, is not known. As I said, we work with what we have. We can speculate about anything, but until there's hard evidence to take into the lab and analyze, it remains speculation.

The magic wand of a creator has not shown up in any lab that I'm aware of. That said, I would never rule out something out without definitive evidence.


edit on 9-3-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

What I find amazing is how easily dismissed all that and other evidence is by atheists.

Information like that is incredible and can only lead a person to think that humanity coexisted with these dragons
To atheists it's like garlic to vampires, it makes them manifest into ranting raving madmen

this should turn into quite a storm, better put on a safety line



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ragedyman (I am sure 11 would take offence at that
)

You say “evolutionist” like it is a belief system. It is not. It’s a theory (in the scientific sense, do you know what that means? I don’t think so). It is part of a scientific discipline, and you don’t believe it, it just is. A theory, with overwhelming evidence. IF one (say me) were to be an “evolutionist” I would also be a thermodynamicist, a kineticist, etc. These are also theories and laws within the scientific frame work. Do you use those terms too? Nope. But the real point you are missing in your blinkered little world is this: Science does not rely on belief. It relies on data, and evidence. Belief is the preview of faith. But I have faith too. It is not pertinent here. But I will reiterate, it is not an Abrahamic faith. It is every bit as strong as yours I am sure, perhaps more so, as I am clergy in my faith as well.

Now the “Big Bang” is just one of the theories about the beginning of the Universe. There are several, and all have evidence for and against them.

I don’t know why you are trying to explain the big bang to me (by the way, you are doing a horrid job at that). You also seem to think I am asking you to prove that the Big bang is the common ancestor? NO I told you to prove claims you made. I know that the Big Bang is not the common ancestor, it’s not a creature, it is thus not beholden to biological evolution. See that is what we are talking about here, BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. That is one species mutating into another. The whole Universe is not a species, it is not biological.

So I am going to reiterate a couple of things to you.

(a) You don’t appear to understand Science at all. You are cutting and pasting things (want me to put your replies through plagiarism algorithms?) to try and “prove” your point of view, with out understanding the point of view, science, or the language you are using.
(b) I am a qualified and degreed scientist. I work in the sciences (I am a Pharmaceutical Chemsit, but I am also qualified in Bioinformatics, of which Genomics is a sub discipline, and have conducted research into cancer genetics, and ancestral DNA analysis).
(c) You are engaging in logical fallacies, moving the goal posts. First its evolution, then it is the big bang, next it will be quantum something or others (I don’t think you understand anything quantum).
(d) You are making the assumption I am an atheist. I am not. I am a Neopagan Druid and a Gaelic Reconstructive Heathen. Those are some big words, I suggest you judiciously google. But the cliff notes for you are this. I am a polytheist, I am also a scientist. They don’t influence each other, nor do they interfere with one another.

So when you try to “explain” science to me again. Actually try to use some science eh? I’m not a layman.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Not an atheist. So try again neighbour....



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Can you show me evidence it a transitional fossil and not unique

It looks like a big lizard to me



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you even know what you are looking for?


(post by Raggedyman removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you choose to use a word incorrectly, repeatedly, it still does not make it a fact. Despite what Goebbels implied

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, your understanding of evolution (and science) is flawed. Indeed you seem to not like people who work hard to understand the deeper mysteries of the world. Could it be that you are feeling inferior to us neighbour? Nah, that would be too easy


Say what ever you like about my education. But be aware that would also be a logical fallacy. Also you have posted on an open forum, if you do not want people to respond, stick to closed ones, or blog.

Oh and I don't need a dating site thanks, I've been married for 12 years, and I am quite happy thanks. Unless you were trying to get me to proposition you on one? If thats the case? Nah, you don't pass my criteria for dating, which is have a functioning intellect


But lets got back to your OP. Scientists do not get upset that people get the science of evolution wrong, they simply correct those who get it wrong, and those they correct get upset. Could it be that if you actually learned what evolution was about (warning, it will use multi-syllabic words) you might not make these mistakes?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
OH and ignorant people? Who would those be ace? Elucidate us all



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

. Uhhm 42 marbles



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Under acidic conditions what is the product of water and pentyl ethanoate?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Why are you asking me about ester hydrolysis? One assumes you are testing if I am a chemist? That's pretty low level stuff. Do you want the mechanism too? Here is a hint, the hydronium ion looses a hydrogen to give water.

Word to the wise, anyone can google that one. My PhD was in free radical modifications of cyclic derivatives of amino acids. My bioinformatics qualification was into BRCA 1 and 2 synthetic lethal combos, and the business masters did research into how Millennials use modern media to find services. I've also got a qualification in Hazard assessment and management. All of these were from Otago University


But ok doke, acetic acid (ethanoic acid), pentanol and some water too.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join