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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Watch Evolution in Action

page: 17
32
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
I really think we should be able to "dislike" posts on here, rather than just star them. It would be hilarious to see how many negative points these propaganda machines would get. I just don't see what they are trying to accomplish by repeating the same debunked crap over and over and posting the same BS youtube videos over and over with zero science whatsoever, then they claim it's fact. Too funny.


I genuinely don't think you understand both sides of the argument.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
I really think we should be able to "dislike" posts on here, rather than just star them. It would be hilarious to see how many negative points these propaganda machines would get. I just don't see what they are trying to accomplish by repeating the same debunked crap over and over and posting the same BS youtube videos over and over with zero science whatsoever, then they claim it's fact. Too funny.


I genuinely don't think you understand both sides of the argument.


I genuinely don't think you understand modern evolutionary synthesis. But don't ever let that keep you from commenting on the subject.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I genuinely don't think you understand modern evolutionary synthesis. But don't ever let that keep you from commenting on the subject.


I was taught it early on in life. high school then college level. The theory isn't much to grasp, they teach it to 9th graders ... once I dug deeper into the intricate interdependent physiological mechanisms of organisms I realized it is impossible.
edit on 21-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I genuinely don't think you understand modern evolutionary synthesis. But don't ever let that keep you from commenting on the subject.


I was taught it early on in life. high school then college level. The theory isn't much to grasp, they teach it to 9th graders ... once I dug deeper into the intricate interdependent physiological mechanisms of organisms I realized it is impossible.


Fact evidence all around you

Fact take dogs without interbreeding given enough time they wont be able to interbreed given accumulation of mutations, effectively wed have different species



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
Proverbs 19:1

19 Anyone of little means who is walking in his integrity is better than the one crooked in his lips, and the one that is stupid.

Proverbs 14:16

16 The wise one fears and is turning away from badness, but the stupid is becoming furious and self-confident.

Ecclesiastes 7:25

25 I myself turned around, even my heart did, to know and to explore and to search for wisdom and the reason of things, and to know about the wickedness of stupidity and the foolishness of madness;

Ecclesiastes 7:9

9 Do not be quick* to take offense, for the taking of offense lodges in the bosom of fools.*

1st * = Lit., “hurry in your spirit.”
2nd * = Or possibly, “is the mark of a fool.”

Proverbs 14:29

29 The one who is slow to anger has great discernment,
But the impatient one displays his foolishness.

edit on 22-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
I really think we should be able to "dislike" posts on here, rather than just star them. It would be hilarious to see how many negative points these propaganda machines would get. I just don't see what they are trying to accomplish by repeating the same debunked crap over and over and posting the same BS youtube videos over and over with zero science whatsoever, then they claim it's fact. Too funny.


I genuinely don't think you understand both sides of the argument.


I think we have a consensus that you only blabber your side of your argument. Psychobabble.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I genuinely don't think you understand modern evolutionary synthesis. But don't ever let that keep you from commenting on the subject.


I was taught it early on in life. high school then college level. The theory isn't much to grasp, they teach it to 9th graders ... once I dug deeper into the intricate interdependent physiological mechanisms of organisms I realized it is impossible.


Why don't you argue the evidence rather than repeating ad infinitum your fabricated positions which are based on no evidence? Very disingenuous and telling that you NEVER respond in kind - you only respond repeating your own mantra.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

I think we have a consensus that you only blabber your side of your argument. Psychobabble.



Aren't you the Lamarckist?

"The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you. "

That's Lamarckism^ Not Darwinism/Modern-evolutionary-synthesis. Do you know what you believe?


Why don't you argue the evidence rather than repeating ad infinitum your fabricated positions which are based on no evidence? Very disingenuous and telling that you NEVER respond in kind - you only respond repeating your own mantra.


Which came first the gene or the chaperonin genes necessary for proper expression of the gene? There's other necessary modulatory mechanisms and they could not have all evolved at once, yet, one is useless without the other. We see these interdependent proteins in the simplest bacteria, Even Prokaryotes, indicating there are no living organisms without these mechanisms.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
I really think we should be able to "dislike" posts on here, rather than just star them. It would be hilarious to see how many negative points these propaganda machines would get. I just don't see what they are trying to accomplish by repeating the same debunked crap over and over and posting the same BS youtube videos over and over with zero science whatsoever, then they claim it's fact. Too funny.


I genuinely don't think you understand both sides of the argument.


It's painfully obvious that the latest creationist rhetoric they are teaching you guys is to accuse the people that understand the science of the same fallacies that we have been rightly accusing you guys of all these years. Whereislogic is making a career out of it. They are encouraging you guys to accuse us of fallacies and ignorance as revenge for us doing it to you. It doesn't matter that we aren't actually committing those fallacies or that we actually DO understand the subject, you try to flip the script with baseless accusations like yours above. I see right through it. I don't claim to be an expert or a scientist, but I do analyze science in my free time and understand most of the basic principles. You, on the other hand, act like an expert who knows more about these things than the scientists that study them. I just wonder if you are this skeptical of your dentist's expertise on teeth or your auto mechanic's expertise on cars. I don't get the lack of trust in certified experts.

There isn't even 2 sides to this argument. One "side" understands the science. The other side just denies it. This isn't even an argument here. If you can't address the evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, your entire argument falls apart.
edit on 9 22 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

There isn't even 2 sides to this argument. One "side" understands the science. The other side just denies it. This isn't even an argument here. If you can't address the evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, your entire argument falls apart.


So you don't understand the other side of the argument? I would not be here if I did not think I understood the other side of the argument.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

There isn't even 2 sides to this argument. One "side" understands the science. The other side just denies it. This isn't even an argument here. If you can't address the evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, your entire argument falls apart.


I would not be here if I did not think I understood the other side of the argument.


Yes you would. And are. You have about as much understanding of evolution as a sea cucumber does economics.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

Yes you would. And are. You have about as much understanding of evolution as a sea cucumber does economics.


Just because I don't think it is a valid theory does not mean I am ignorant of its proposed mechanisms. That is biased thinking.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You have not displayed one shred of understanding of the topic and are blissfully unaware of it. It's a farce.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

You have not displayed one shred of understanding of the topic and are blissfully unaware of it.


Mentioning that prokaryotic bacteria was theorized to precede eukaryotic bacteria is a shred of evidence that I understand the theory - and that is just on this page. There are pages and pages of me mentioning the proposed mechanisms. Although I think You are just resorting to insult, as usual, for lack of anything else to say.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

There isn't even 2 sides to this argument. One "side" understands the science. The other side just denies it. This isn't even an argument here. If you can't address the evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, your entire argument falls apart.


So you don't understand the other side of the argument? I would not be here if I did not think I understood the other side of the argument.


I have not yet seen any substantiation or justification for your side of the argument, just a whole bunch of questions that seem more of a lack of understanding of the mechanics of evolution, and refusal to read papers that people have posted. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you offer citations for your "side" of the argument? It seems you have just been questioning how the particular genes can change and have referenced a few links that don't really agree with your position.


Just because I don't think it is a valid theory does not mean I am ignorant of its proposed mechanisms. That is biased thinking.


Funny because you literally just accused me of not understanding your side of the argument because I disagree with your reasoning. According to your statement above, that is also biased thinking, is it not?

If you are not actually ignorant of the mechanisms, then why don't you ever address the scientific evidence when it's presented? Why do you keep asking questions that don't really make a lot of sense? To argue against an established scientific theory, you need 1 of 2 things. You either need evidence that conflicts with the evidence that backs it, OR you need evidence of an alternative theory. I have never seen you post either one of these or address scientific research papers that others have posted.

edit on 9 22 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

That is quaint. I am sure the cabal has passages to refute this however



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I understand the other sides neighbour, ( there are many sides to the argument) and you've gone and made it all dualistic, which is a little stereotypical, even for a creationist.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
does anyone have anything to add that is relevant to the original post or the video in the original post? are we satisfied that the contents of the video demonstrate modern evolutionary synthesis?
edit on 22-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I am sure someone will perform necromancy on this thread in the coming weeks and months.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Nope. I've said what I wanted to say.

Very interesting video and description on how evolution works.

Got nothing else to add now. I think it's time we leave the anti-science crew to their own delusions.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join