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

Modern proof of evolution.

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: jimmyriddler

This is the exact opposite of evolution which claims new information just comes out of nowhere

It does?


Don't you think its strange that there are no half-evolved animals anywhere, ever?

Every animal is a transitional form between its parent and its descendants.

*edit: oops. Didn't read Agartha's post first.


Can you prove that or is it an assumption




posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Dude...after this gem from jimmyriddler:



Don't you think its strange that there are no half-evolved animals anywhere, ever? How many plants or animals do you know of that have appendages half developed, or unfinished eyes or ears or organs? Name even one? The world should be absolutely full of them if evolution were true.


...I think I'm going to have to jump ship from my own thread! Lmfao! I mean, seriously... argh I need some eye bleach and a stiff drink after that one.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

...I think I'm going to have to jump ship from my own thread! Lmfao! I mean, seriously... argh I need some eye bleach and a stiff drink after that one.


LOL Wait until they start accusing you of poor comprehension like Bone75 did with me..... if they weren't so hypocritical it'd be funny! lol

This is a great thread, don't give up on it!



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The answer to that is that what is purported to be science is often anything but. What I should have said is that you'd be amazed at how much the scientific paradigms have wrong.

Jaden



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

what do you think empirical evidence means??

How is the evidence for evolution not empirical evidence??

BTW, I never posted any picture of a frog saying it was evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Only pic of a frog I've seen is your avatar and you can't blame me for that.


He keeps asking for proof of the steps of evolution, so I posted this:

And his response was 'oh, an illustration of frogs'....completely ignoring the fact that the chart shows the step by step EVOLUTION of snakes to frogs.

TheKnightofDoom is at the bottom of page 9 saying he's a troll. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he's sure as hell refusing to even consider evidence even when it's shoved right in his face. You can lead a horse to water....


It's illustrations, how about evidence
Pretty pictures are not evidence
It's absurd


Ah, that is exactly the evidence you requested.

If you look at the tree the species are listed and you can do a little research on each to see how that tree is formed, however I read your posts and I very much doubt you will accept it anyways, that would require thinking outside of your glowing self-righteous ignorance.

As a good member just pointed something out, I wonder if all my life the Platypus and the Lung Fish I have seen are fake.

Definition of Empirical Evidence:


Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.


I do believe we have that.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Of the ones quoting scripture:
I wonder if they got that straight from the original Hebrew manuscripts....or were those quotes from the versions of the Bible that have been translated, re-translated, edited, translated some more, reworded, added on to, straight up altered, etc. over the past 2000 years?



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

What I should have said is that you'd be amazed at how much the scientific paradigms have wrong.

I'm sure many here are open to being amazed should you have the interest in showing us that.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

there is absolutely nothing we can show you that will change your mind. you have admitted as much. it can only be concluded that you are entertaining yourself by daring members here to change your mind and doing your best to remain immutable in spite of their efforts.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

From good ol us hoomans woop woop go us....

I do agree with ya there not so much accident on our part but one way or another, life will find a way



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
So, is that why domestic pigs have no tusks and wild hogs do? They must be trying to trick us into not eating them..... it has worked so well......

This must be why pugs and wolves have the exact same teeth..... evolution.... yeah that's it,

it had nothing to do with the all the elephants with large tusks being killed so they didn't have offspring, and the ones with smaller tusks not being killed resulting in them being the only ones left to be able to reproduce.....

Maybe the tusks are getting smaller and smaller because the only animals left in the gene pool (still alive) are the ones with smaller tusks....

How do you think we get really smalls dogs that look just like the bigger version.... they evolved that way so more people would buy them cause their so cute.....

This entire OP is based off flawed logic
edit on 28-11-2016 by fatkid because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I have many times.

Jaden



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I am a just an ignorant troll.

Jaden


Well that was refreshing!
edit on 28 by AshFan because: edicate



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon

You don't have that of a common ancestor between a dog and a giraffe, or even a mouse and a kangaroo rat.

Jaden



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

I'm far from ignorant, but lashing out is the only bastion of the truly ignorant and spoon fed...


Jaden



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AshFan

I'm far from ignorant, but lashing out is the only bastion of the truly ignorant and spoon fed...


Jaden


SPOOOON!!!!



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

And you called ME a troll LOL!!!!!


Jaden



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AshFan

And you called ME a troll LOL!!!!!


Jaden


Correct, your reading comprehension has improved!



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

there is absolutely nothing we can show you that will change your mind. you have admitted as much. it can only be concluded that you are entertaining yourself by daring members here to change your mind and doing your best to remain immutable in spite of their efforts.

You can show me empirical,evidence
Or are you suggesting none will ever be found
Interesting



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

what do you think empirical evidence means??

How is the evidence for evolution not empirical evidence??

BTW, I never posted any picture of a frog saying it was evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Only pic of a frog I've seen is your avatar and you can't blame me for that.


He keeps asking for proof of the steps of evolution, so I posted this:

And his response was 'oh, an illustration of frogs'....completely ignoring the fact that the chart shows the step by step EVOLUTION of snakes to frogs.

TheKnightofDoom is at the bottom of page 9 saying he's a troll. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he's sure as hell refusing to even consider evidence even when it's shoved right in his face. You can lead a horse to water....


It's illustrations, how about evidence
Pretty pictures are not evidence
It's absurd


Ah, that is exactly the evidence you requested.

If you look at the tree the species are listed and you can do a little research on each to see how that tree is formed, however I read your posts and I very much doubt you will accept it anyways, that would require thinking outside of your glowing self-righteous ignorance.

As a good member just pointed something out, I wonder if all my life the Platypus and the Lung Fish I have seen are fake.

Definition of Empirical Evidence:


Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.


I do believe we have that.


Illustrations of frogs and whales does not constitute evidence of anything scientific, just good drawings
As for lungfish and the platypus, prove they evolved into,something else, where what

You need to show evidence not pictures



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

what do you think empirical evidence means??

How is the evidence for evolution not empirical evidence??

BTW, I never posted any picture of a frog saying it was evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Only pic of a frog I've seen is your avatar and you can't blame me for that.


He keeps asking for proof of the steps of evolution, so I posted this:

And his response was 'oh, an illustration of frogs'....completely ignoring the fact that the chart shows the step by step EVOLUTION of snakes to frogs.

TheKnightofDoom is at the bottom of page 9 saying he's a troll. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he's sure as hell refusing to even consider evidence even when it's shoved right in his face. You can lead a horse to water....


It's illustrations, how about evidence
Pretty pictures are not evidence
It's absurd


Ah, that is exactly the evidence you requested.

If you look at the tree the species are listed and you can do a little research on each to see how that tree is formed, however I read your posts and I very much doubt you will accept it anyways, that would require thinking outside of your glowing self-righteous ignorance.

As a good member just pointed something out, I wonder if all my life the Platypus and the Lung Fish I have seen are fake.

Definition of Empirical Evidence:


Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.


I do believe we have that.


Illustrations of frogs and whales does not constitute evidence of anything scientific, just good drawings
As for lungfish and the platypus, prove they evolved into,something else, where what

You need to show evidence not pictures


would you be willing to define evidence? and explain how the illustrations do not qualify as such?







 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join