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: 47
57
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic I and others have presented mountains of evidence that you or your Geneticist friend can't refute.


Er... no. You keep citing either a) pseudo-scientific gibberish or b) academic sources that actually refute your position.




posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

Cosmicfingerprints.com is not a scientific source, and nobody cares about quote mines from Yockey. Please link the scientific research papers directly instead of bias propaganda sites. This argument is not about atheism, it's about evolution, yet you keep bringing up atheism or atheists as if it has anything to do with it. You have been conditioned to believe that evolution is atheistic, but it's not.

Please by all means post your scientific research papers that prove design. You keep saying it and quoting propaganda, but nothing legit or scientific thus far. Information theory is not biology and is completely irrelevant when referencing DNA, which is NOT computer software. Care to try again? Please give me science for once.


Everything I have posted has been legit and this is why you had to run to a Geneticist to find answers.

This is where you know they have really lost the debate. I and oothers have presented a mountain of evidence that can't be refute. You guys have tried for 47 pages and the best you can do is run to a Geneticist because you can't answer simple questions about a TATA or CAAT box.

When you reach a point in a debate after 47 pages when people keep saying, show me the evidence like a broken record, you know they have lost the debate. We have been debating the issues for 47 pages and the evidence presented couldn't be refuted.

Now we're supposed to list all of the evidence presented and debated about in 47 pages in one post LOL? You only do this when for 47 pages you haven't been able to refute the evidence so you think that saying this over and over again means something. It's meaningless and it makes you look bad because if nobody has presented any evidence, what have you been debating for 47 pages? Why did you run to a Geneticist to try to find answers?

See, I don't have to be dishonest. I can say people have presented evidence that they think supports their view but in the end they haven't been able to refute the mountains of evidence that supports Intelligent Design.

You on the other hand are in such a weak position, you can't even admit that the people you're debating have presented scientific evidence. You have to act like nobody has presented evidence contrary to your BELIEF in order to continue living in a fantasy world.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic



Everything I have posted has been legit and this is why you had to run to a Geneticist to find answers.


You're really hung up on the fact that someone didn't have an answer readily available so instead of posting incorrect or out of context information like you've done they attempted to find the best answer. It's called due diligence. Try it out sometime.


This is where you know they have really lost the debate.


You do realize that you're the only one posting here thst thinks this is a debate right? A debate is moderated and has formal rules. If you used any of these sources you claim are mountains of evidence, you would be prohibited from debating in such a setting. If you want to engage in an actual debate, there is a forum on ATS for just that purpose.


I and oothers have presented a mountain of evidence that can't be refute.


No, you've posted videos of people giving their opinions, you've taken legitimate data completely out of context to fit your narrative and in some cases either lied or unwillingly posted utterly false information.


You guys have tried for 47 pages and the best you can do is run to a Geneticist because you can't answer simple questions about a TATA or CAAT box.


I must have missed it in the blubbery pile of snot you think is evidence. Could you repeat your specific question please? I'd like to see exactly what you're referring to and address it.


When you reach a point in a debate after 47 pages when people keep saying, show me the evidence like a broken record, you know they have lost the debate. We have been debating the issues for 47 pages and the evidence presented couldn't be refuted.


People keep asking you for valid scientific evidence that supports your position. Why? Because you have failed to do so. Just like you don't even acknowledge that the entire premise of this thread shifted goal posts between the title and your opening paragraph. The title is essentially your thesis statement. You have demonstrated that you don't understand evolutionary theory enough to recognize that half way through the thread you made statements that completely nullified any of your own arguments.


Now we're supposed to list all of the evidence presented and debated about in 47 pages in one post LOL?


Who is "we"? Are you posting under multiple accounts?


You only do this when for 47 pages you haven't been able to refute the evidence so you think that saying this over and over again means something. It's meaningless and it makes you look bad because if nobody has presented any evidence, what have you been debating for 47 pages?


No, it makes YOU look bad because you are being willfully ignorant while ignoring Occams Razor and insisting on a correlation equals causation scenario that only exists in your mind.


Why did you run to a Geneticist to try to find answers?


Probably because Barcs isn't a Molecular Biologist. I don't get why this takes up so much of center stage that you repeat it over and over an over...


See, I don't have to be dishonest. I can say people have presented evidence that they think supports their view but in the end they haven't been able to refute the mountains of evidence that supports Intelligent Design.


Again, videos of people giving their opinions on subject matter they aren't qualified to discuss and out of context quotes do not make evidence.


You on the other hand are in such a weak position, you can't even admit that the people you're debating have presented scientific evidence. You have to act like nobody has presented evidence contrary to your BELIEF in order to continue living in a fantasy world.


This last part you said into the mirror ten or twelve times before posting right? Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot. The ignorance is strong with this one.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

More blather. You said:

People keep asking you for valid scientific evidence that supports your position. Why? Because you have failed to do so.

I guess we're at the part of the thread where people claim there hasn't been any scientific evidence presented for 47 pages yet they haven't been able to refute any of the evidence presented for 47 pages.

Why are you guys on this thread if there hasn't been any evidence presented for 47 pages? That makes you look kind of silly doesn't it?

Of course evidence has been presented but because you can't refute it, you have now begun the silly asking for evidence after 47 pages of discussion like what has been presented in 47 pages should then be listed again in one post. It's nonsense but it shows how weak your position is.

When I say WE, I'm talking about others that have presented very strong evidence like cooperton or whereislogic. Mountains of evidence has been presented throughout this thread but I'm sure you will ask, where is the evidence after 47 pages of discussion of the evidence presented.

Also, your nonsense about the word debate shows you're grasping at straws. This is a debate in a discussion forum. What's the definition of debate?

de·bate (dĭ-bāt′)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.


This is clearly a debate about a subject on a discussion forum. There's formal debates and informal debates and guess what, THERE BOTH DEBATES


An informal debate can be two people on the corner debating about whose the greates Quarterback in the history of the NFL.

The fact that you're whining about me using the word debate shows how weak your argument is. You said:

You do realize that you're the only one posting here thst thinks this is a debate right? A debate is moderated and has formal rules.

Again, just nonsense. I was recently at the Barbershop and they were debating whether Kyrie Irving is better than PG than Russell Westbrook. So the fact that you even bring something like this up shows you're grasping at straws because you can't refute the evidence.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
If you wish to claim an intelligent designer made DNA, you need evidence of this designer. That's how science works if you wish to assert a claim like that. There is no evidence of design.



If a genetic code and the information encoded in such does not suffice for you to indicate a coder, what could possibly demonstrate to you that there was an intelligent designer that designed this intelligent code?

Does God need to incarnate in the flesh and tell you the truth to your face? You wouldn't believe it if (when) He did.


originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton

That is a fairly traditional view, of course, since at least Aristotle. But it is rather pathetically non-politically-correct these days, and for one who espouses Christian beliefs probably downright heretical. After all, according to Aristotle, since the female provides the matter, and the male the spirit, the only way a female could be created is if some terrible mistake took place. So you are saying God made a terrible mistake when he created Eve (and all the other females that had to exist to mate with Cain and Abel and son on)?. Oh Really?



All of humankind (flesh [matter] is female - The Daughters of Zion) was spawned from a mistake, but God has his way of turning mistakes into Goodness - if not for the mistake of matter, none of us would exist, or have the potential for Life. Pistis Sophia discusses the human mistake and redemption in detail. I have to admit I'm impressed with your diversity rnaa, but why do you waste your time with material reductionism?
edit on 26-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Give it up, guys. This isn't worth it.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Give it up, guys. This isn't worth it.


I agree, they can't refute the evidence and neither can you. You have posted nonsense for 20 pages and now you're telling people to give up? You should have thought of this 20 pages ago when you kept posting things that have nothing to do with the thread or didn't offer any response to the evidence presented.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Lol. Gotta love when people with terrible positions declare victory when their opponents quit the conversation in frustration.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

When you actually provide some evidence, rather than some dogma, and bravado, then you might have a chance of aspiring to that last post neighbor. Till then, you look like a c*ck womble.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

When you actually provide some evidence, rather than some dogma, and bravado, then you might have a chance of aspiring to that last post neighbor. Till then, you look like a c*ck womble.


Very elelegant LOL!

You guys become unhinged when your dogma is challenged and you can't refute any evidence. Now it will be the broken record that I haven't provided any evidence when for 47 pages I and others have provided evidence that can't be refuted. If I didn't provide any evidence what have you been debating for 47 pages? This really makes you look silly.

The truth is, I have provided evidence and the fact that you're reduced to saying you having provided any evidence and talks about womble shows how weak your argument is.

I would never stick arond on a thread for 30-40 pages if we weren't debating evidence presented. Again, it simply shows you couldn't refute the evidence presented and now you sound like a broken record. I think 3 or 4 of you guys have been regulated to the "you haven't provided any evidence" argument after 47 pages. NONSENSE



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So you're not gonna post any evidence?



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I will take that as you have nothing to post.

Also calling someone unhinged, with out evidence (guess what, we are all calm when replying here neighbour, you are not worth getting unhinged over) is a logical fallacy (The Ad Hominem Argument), and is another capitulation. Unless you are Donald Trump, then its your go too thing


So evidence, and I mean actual evidence, not a youtube video, not a random article from the net. But verifiable, testable, ecidence. Do you have it? Can you post it?

And go....



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Look, I'm not playing these silly games. If you have a question then ask it. This thread is 47 pages long and there has been a lot of evidence presented on both sides. Not by you, but others have attempted to try and support their weak position and they get an A for effort.

I'm not going to spend a post rehashing evidence that has been presented over 47 pages and it's evidence you have tried to respond to for about 40 pages. Now all of a sudden I'm supposed to list evidence in a post that's spread out over 47 pages and that you have debated?

That's just nonsense and it's a childish debate tactic. You have been here for 40 pages debating the evidence presented and you couldn't refute it. I'm not going to waste time posting evidence that has been spread out over 47 pages.
edit on 27-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So you're not going to post any evidence?



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

So you're not going to post any evidence?


I already have and that's why this thread is 47 pages long. You were here debating then you said some nonsense that got erased by the Moderators then you left.

If you have rejoined the the thread and you want to debate, read the thread.
edit on 27-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

No you haven't. You posted stories, blogs and YouTube videos.

Where's the evidence?

ETA: Doesn't matter how long a thread is either. Length of thread doesn't make an argument more or less valid.
edit on 2742016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Post that cosmicfingerprints.com link again, I could do with a laugh.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Again, this is just silly. I also posted published papers and scientific work even from leading atheist in their field. Again, this is just a silly tactic because you can't debate the issue.

You tried a few pages back then your post got erased by the Moderators and you vanished. Now you're back with the same nonsense that got your post erased before.

So please stop asking the same questions. If you want to debate an issue listed in this 47 page thread, then debate the issue. When you keep asking the same question that's not going to get a different response it's just a waste of time.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79

Again, this is just silly. I also posted published papers and scientific work even from leading atheist in their field. Again, this is just a silly tactic because you can't debate the issue.

You tried a few pages back then your post got erased by the Moderators and you vanished. Now you're back with the same nonsense that got your post erased before.

So please stop asking the same questions. If you want to debate an issue listed in this 47 page thread, then debate the issue. When you keep asking the same question that's not going to get a different response it's just a waste of time.


this thread is a waste of time anyway.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

spoiler alert: its a waste of your time.

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*

this is an exercise of pride for some members, they derive satisfaction from frustrating you and others. now that i have posted the links here, i imagine we can just let the willing educate themselves on the matter. the rest will not be moved no matter what lengths you go to.

edit on 27-4-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
originally posted by: TzarChasm


Please stop with the nonsense post. You're clogging up the thread with your opinion about whether others should respond or not.

Why have you been on this thread for 30 or 40 pages if it's a waste of time? Go to another thread and let others debate the issue who want to debate the issue.
edit on 27-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join