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 Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

page: 15
57
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Barcs

I answered all of them with links here. The fact that they are still pretending like these questions are unanswered is just astounding. No wait. No it isn't. They just aren't looking to deny ignorance with this discussion. Only echo chambers are allowed here. Everything else is ignored.


You answered nothing.

You quoted the question and then linked to a PDF LOL!

That's not answering anything. Why can't you answer them in your own words instead of linking to a PDF and then say go Fish.

If you can't answer them, at least quote the relevent text from the PDF and explain how it answers the question. I looked over a few of your papers and they say nothing as it pertains to the questions.

Again, we're in a debate on a message board not a go fish through 10 PDF's to find the answer that you can't find.




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MrConspiracy

No I NEVER said that. I made a logical statement that if you don't believe in evolution you must also not believe in modern medicine since modern medicine relies on evolutionary theory. So LOGICALLY one should distrust both, not that they aren't entitled to use it. Of course those hypocrites are going to deny evolution turn around and take advantage of the benefits it supplies without any questions.

It's the same reason the faithful are always going on about praying diseases away or whatever but then send their children to the hospital as soon as they get sick. It's because we all know deep down that these things work and science is on the right track, we are just playing pretend by saying that isn't the case.


I've never known people try and pray their child's sickness away. Other than that one Family Guy episode. And no you didn't directly say it, but saying anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should stop using medical services was pretty much the same thing and equally ridiculous.

The advancement of "Science" is a fine thing. Even the religious folk I know agree on that.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Haven't read the entire thread yet but this post made me laugh.
I am a semi "old timer" here and though I may have loooonnnggg absences, somethings never change.
They say they answer when they don't and accuse you of nor answering their questions or worse not understanding them.
Muhuhahaha, it's a pity the strategy has not "evolved".



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Sigh... The ultimate evolution denier fail. Can't refute anymore of the theory? Just start comparing it to religion. I'll just ignore this and wait for you to come up with something better to talk about.


Well when you don't offer anything explaining the obvious paradox in evolutionary theory that I am bringing into question, what else can I say? Here again is the paradox which cannot be addressed because it is logically impossible without intelligent agency.

the paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes. Not to mention all the necessary regulative agents that control said processes.

Like neoholographic said, don't make me go fishing through irrelevant PDFs that don't suffice as an answer to the question.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: neoholographic
Haven't read the entire thread yet but this post made me laugh.
I am a semi "old timer" here and though I may have loooonnnggg absences, somethings never change.
They say they answer when they don't and accuse you of nor answering their questions or worse not understanding them.
Muhuhahaha, it's a pity the strategy has not "evolved".


You're right LOL! The answers never evolve they're the same tactics and the same non answers.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Good points and you said:

Like neoholographic said, don't make me go fishing through irrelevant PDFs that don't suffice as an answer to the question.

Look how krazyshot answered the first question.


How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

answer


Then he linked to a question and answer on Biology Stackexchange. Now how is this an answer in a debate? He doesn't give any answer or context to the link. He doesn't say or quote the relevent portions of the link that pertain to the question. He just posts a link and says Go Fish.

When you look at the link, it supports exactly what I'm saying. I will quote from the link since Krazyshot couldn't.


Operons, often but not always, contain clusters of genes (under the control of an operator region) which are involved in the same metabolic pathway. There have been several theories for how these groups of genes have arisen but the current feeling seems to be based around the regulation of the genes in question


Oh, Oh! THE REGULATIONS OF THE GENES IN QUESTION!

What have I been talking about throughout this thread? Intelligence as it relates to the mechanics and the process with things like gene regulation, expression, transcription, translation, error correction and more.

So the link to the very first question reverts back to what I have been saying throughout this thread.
edit on 11-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Erm, I just answered one...


With the 'Great We Don't Know Yet god of the agnostic gaps, but we're so close it's just not completely clear, just a little gap in knowledge but nature did it anyway' (look at these fanciful maybe-so stories about how nature could have done it > link). Speculation is not science. When there is no gap in knowledge for those who have used inductive reasoning regarding the Lac operon to draw the correct/factual/certain/absolute/definitive conclusion from the established facts, which you pretend aren't evidence for design (or conveniently ignore). And then you switch to:


Not knowing the answer isn't evidence for the opposing position.


As if it's an argument from ignorance while you're arguing from ignorance and fantasies of how nature could have done it. Continuing to pretend that 'we' somehow don't know how the first Lac operon came into existence so you can turn the world upside down and pretend that those who made the correct conclusions still need to prove those conclusions are correct (which you refuse to verify for yourself using inductive reasoning), while they already explained the proof/evidence and how they came to those conclusions (and Newton explains how you can be certain if a conclusion is correct, but I doubt very much you get what he says and even if you did watch Michael Behe's video where he quotes the Encyclopaedia Britannica about that subject, you'll probably zoom in and love the second part of the definition that is visible on screen without understanding where that philosophy came from).

But keep on pretending there's a gap (or "it's not completely clear, but scientists have a good idea of how it happened."; when all they have is fantasies and illogical speculation, supported by propagandistic tricks to get people to overlook the problems in their stories or explain them away á la Lucius Lavin in the show Stargate Atlantis season 3 episode 3); so you can make the false accusation of a god of the gaps usage when you're doing it yourself by arguing for 'nature did it' (without spelling it out, the hidden 'nature did its' are all over the place and in the links you and Krazysh0t supply as supposed answers). To me it's very useful to see 2 Timothy 4:3,4, Eccl. 1:9, 1 Timothy 6:20, Colossians 2:8 and Isaiah 5:20,21 demonstrated, to name just a few.

Notice what this man says after 6 minutes (you can skip the first 6, there might be some young earth creationism in there, and there's a phrase later on that I'm really not happy about cause it may lead a conditioned mind to erronous logical pathways and thinking about the word "presupposition", cause there's only one side using a presupposition here, and from the way he phrases it, it sounds like both sides are using a presupposition. I hope you can look past all that anyway, or someone else can perhaps. Sorry for not taking time to explain it in more detail cause I'm still hoping it won't trigger the usual responses):


edit on 11-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

citation needed.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So where is your rebuttal to the link I posted???



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Barcs

I answered all of them with links here. The fact that they are still pretending like these questions are unanswered is just astounding. No wait. No it isn't. They just aren't looking to deny ignorance with this discussion. Only echo chambers are allowed here. Everything else is ignored.


Wow, awesome post! I didn't catch that my first time through. My guess is that they did not even attempt to offer a rebuttal to the links posted. It's hilarious how they ask questions and then dismiss they answers because they don't like them. Gotta love the hypocrisy.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Barcs

I answered all of them with links here. The fact that they are still pretending like these questions are unanswered is just astounding. No wait. No it isn't. They just aren't looking to deny ignorance with this discussion. Only echo chambers are allowed here. Everything else is ignored.


You answered nothing.

You quoted the question and then linked to a PDF LOL!

That's not answering anything. Why can't you answer them in your own words instead of linking to a PDF and then say go Fish.

If you can't answer them, at least quote the relevent text from the PDF and explain how it answers the question. I looked over a few of your papers and they say nothing as it pertains to the questions.

Again, we're in a debate on a message board not a go fish through 10 PDF's to find the answer that you can't find.


Still awaiting your debunk of the evolutionary evidence. LMAO at claiming that PDF's don't answer questions, when people provide sources that you don't even read. Laughably stupid, sorry.


Now you're saying the lac operon isn't related to evolution? Are you saying repressors, enhancers and promotors associated with the lac operon have nothing to do with evolution LOL?


Um, first I didn't say ALL questions were completely unrelated. Second, you asked specific questions about how certain features and mechanics first emerged. That is NOT evolution, that is abiogenesis. The emergence of DNA is NOT evolution. You don't seem to understand this.


It's the Primary Axiom.


Oooo oooo Oooh! Capitalize Primary and Axiom to make them seem more important when it's just a catch phrase to support your faulty claims. The process of evolution is not an axiom, it's a scientific fact. Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. The theory of evolution explains this process. It's not about how DNA first arose.
edit on 4 11 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist

Again "Half the world", show the stats
I am going to also challenge the "evolution became the belief structure for the other half who do not believe in creationism." You do understand there are a great many scientists who are religious right?



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Do you even read posts? I answered his 1st answer and no, PDF's don't answer question. You just can say, here's the answer based on a 40 page PDF. That's just nonsense. This is why I quote the revelent portions that address what I'm saying. I don't say here's a PDF or Article find the answer.

If you look at the 1st link posted, it doesn't answer anything and it supports what I'm saying.


How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

answer


Then he linked to a question and answer on Biology Stackexchange. Now how is this an answer in a debate? He doesn't give any answer or context to the link. He doesn't say or quote the relevent portions of the link that pertain to the question. He just posts a link and says Go Fish.

When you look at the link, it supports exactly what I'm saying. I will quote from the link since Krazyshot couldn't.


Operons, often but not always, contain clusters of genes (under the control of an operator region) which are involved in the same metabolic pathway. There have been several theories for how these groups of genes have arisen but the current feeling seems to be based around the regulation of the genes in question


Oh, Oh! THE REGULATIONS OF THE GENES IN QUESTION!

What have I been talking about throughout this thread? Intelligence as it relates to the mechanics and the process with things like gene regulation, expression, transcription, translation, error correction and more.

So the link to the very first question reverts back to what I have been saying throughout this thread.

Again, you don't answer questions in a debate by providing a link with no context.

I could have started this thread by posting a bunch of links with no context and the moderators would have shut down the thread and rightly so.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I answered those questions as thoroughly as required. You can read them your damn self to get the answers. I held your hand long enough to link the pages when you could have just answered them all with a Google search, which I proved. Just asking the questions doesn't prove anything. If you actually cared to answer them yourself instead of trying to slyly imply that because the questions are tough to answer for people posting on an internet message board, evolution is false, you'd know that they all have answers.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Yet some of those same religious folks tell you that evolution isn't real, picking and choosing which parts of science they want to believe to more closely align with their faith.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Let's all say it together. One more time. The emergence of DNA is not part of evolution. The emergence of DNA is not part of evolution. Maybe one day you'll get it. I'm not counting on it, however. Your questions are loaded and also irrelevant for evolution to be true. The fact is they already function the way they do, so denying that it could get to that point is nonsensical. DNA is there and mutations in it cause evolution. It doesn't matter if god created DNA or whatever else you claim is the truth. All life on earth changes slightly over time with changes to the genetic code caused by mutation. This is proven verified fact. You are arguing nothing but straw mans.
edit on 4 11 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Well when you don't offer anything explaining the obvious paradox in evolutionary theory that I am bringing into question, what else can I say? Here again is the paradox which cannot be addressed because it is logically impossible without intelligent agency.

the paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes. Not to mention all the necessary regulative agents that control said processes.

Like neoholographic said, don't make me go fishing through irrelevant PDFs that don't suffice as an answer to the question.


No. I won't do any of that. Go use Google your damn self and figure out the answer. Then come back, explain it, in your own words, then say why it is flawed. Just asking how it happened doesn't prove anything incorrect.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL, is this a joke? Is it still April Fool's day and I don't realize it.

If I say this answers your question.

arxiv.org...

I then post a link to 1 16 page PDF without any context as to how this answers the question or the relevent portions that pertain to the question, it's just nonsense. I have never debated by trading PDF's and saying go fish. You didn't provide any context just a link.

As I showed in your first link, it answered nothing. It actually supports what I'm saying.

I'm not going to waste time to go fish through links where you don't even understand what your posting.

The very first link you posted supports what I'm saying. This means you're just blindy posting links in hopes no one will actually read them or you're just blindly posting links and you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic



Ahh yes metamorphosis. Its like evolution inception. Evolution within evolution! I'd love to see the one theoretical gene that supposedly mutated that suddenly allowed a worm-like creature to go through a complete metamorphic transformation into a flying insect. Or, if there were hypothetical intermediate mutations, I'd love to see what an incomplete metamorphosed insect would look like, or how it would survive with any success. Not to mention these metamorphosing creatures Retain their memory through their transformation.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic
The emergence of DNA is not part of evolution.


So DNA was a given? Ok we'll give you that, but only based on faith. So, how did it replicate without transcription, translation, and regulation (all 3 are required to make the proteins that replicate DNA)?


originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No. I won't do any of that. Go use Google your damn self and figure out the answer. Then come back, explain it, in your own words, then say why it is flawed. Just asking how it happened doesn't prove anything incorrect.


Here is the precipice of the logical train. You eventually get to the point where the answers to the logical fallacies of evolution are nowhere to be found. Google all you want, ask any professor you want, but the paradox we are addressing has no answer - it is a logical and actual impossibility without intelligent agency. This is the logic that led me out of the darkness of evolution into the light of intelligent design. You should be overjoyed that there is a higher power and meaning to this life... He's been meaning to get you out of your ignorant daze - perhaps this thread was the ticket.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join