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.

 

Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
a reply to: Tinystarlight

everything was at one time asexual is the most acceptable non-logical theory I've been told.


That can't be so. It would require some sort of .. I dunno.. Evolution, for things to change.

But that's the most ridiculous theory evaar...




posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?


I fully understand evolution. The problem is that its theoretical and doesn't have much going for it in the "solid evidence" department

Its guesswork resting on assumptions resting on conjecture



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.





Can you give an example of a creature drawn by a scientist that only had a single jawbone to work with?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Ask me what sememrize means...



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

That was a quote back to the person who responded. Did you check what he wrote? So actually you did say there are insults and they are coming from who?

As long as it is an arrogant person who disregards, and is so skeptical they cannot imagine a God exists, it is okay. But when you are reasoned with, in turn, with who you really are this is your reply?


Bolded the relevant part of your post there.

IMAGINE.

God in a single word.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?


I fully understand evolution. The problem is that its theoretical and doesn't have much going for it in the "solid evidence" department

Its guesswork resting on assumptions resting on conjecture



People who pay for an education don't want to think for themselves. They want to elevate themselves (in their own minds). That is why arrogance is part of disbelieving in God.

There are people who pay for an education, and go to "higher education" and are able to think beyond what they are taught. But most just sponge it in, hook, line and sinker, and then, look down on everyone else.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.

No, a mind didn't create cellular division. Cells aren't very complicated, but once they divide they can become pretty complex.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.

No, a mind didn't create cellular division. Cells aren't very complicated, but once they divide they can become pretty complex.


Even the most basic cell is very complicated. Either you are uneducated or are lying to yourself. Either way that is a false answer.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?


I fully understand evolution. The problem is that its theoretical and doesn't have much going for it in the "solid evidence" department

Its guesswork resting on assumptions resting on conjecture


Darwin's finches are a pretty good example of evolution in action. It can be argued as adaptation, but physical/physiological changes occurred and were observed.

Also, basically ALL science is theoretical. Science has no problem changing mindset when new evidence arises though.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.

No, a mind didn't create cellular division. Cells aren't very complicated, but once they divide they can become pretty complex.


Even the most basic cell is very complicated. Either you are uneducated or are lying to yourself. Either way that is a false answer.

Oh really?

What makes a single cell so complicated?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?


I fully understand evolution. The problem is that its theoretical and doesn't have much going for it in the "solid evidence" department

Its guesswork resting on assumptions resting on conjecture


Darwin's finches are a pretty good example of evolution in action. It can be argued as adaptation, but physical/physiological changes occurred and were observed.

Also, basically ALL science is theoretical. Science has no problem changing mindset when new evidence arises though.


Darwin's finches are still finches. They made variations in their kind, just like cats or dogs. But if you see those finches in action, they mate with each other and still breed other finches.

???

This is your answer? This is very dishonest.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.


Absurdity at it's finest. Right out of the Kirk Cameron Banana's prove god exists.

You'd do well with Kristen Auclaire on your side.




posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.

No, a mind didn't create cellular division. Cells aren't very complicated, but once they divide they can become pretty complex.


Even the most basic cell is very complicated. Either you are uneducated or are lying to yourself. Either way that is a false answer.

Oh really?

What makes a single cell so complicated?


I know the answer. Why don't you look for it.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

Perhaps they find a bone similar to, but slightly different from other animals known of. They know from their background in animal physiology, similar animals which are possibly related to the animal that had the bone fragment.

They then note the differences, the age of the animal when it died, the size of the bone, differences in tendon anchor points, balance and pivot points.

From the bone fragments there are certain things we can know about the creature. From similar creatures, we can surmise even more about the animal.

Yes, we can then, finally, fill in the spaces using imagination.

I'm not usually an apologist for evolution but I thought I should mention that there is some good science behind the assumptions drawn from fossils.


A lot of it is fantasy. When ape-man was drawn, it was literally a man fantasying it. No link. No bones. No nothing but fairy-tale imagination which so many skeptics believe today.

And they don't even realize they are skeptical of the wrong thing.


Many of these are complete skulls. It would appear that there are bones:

List of human evolution fossils From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.


Absurdity at it's finest. Right out of the Kirk Cameron Banana's prove god exists.

You'd do well with Kristen Auclaire on your side.



DNA is the makeup of the cell. And is digital code. In the makeup of the human the DNA has 4 letters, and makes up enough information to fill books that will fill the Grand Canon from the top to the bottom.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Epic troll thread is epic.

First day on the job, good get.

Hope to see your threads evolve over time.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

There are always sensational reports about so-called bones, and then in very small print retracted later. There is no missing link in existence.

And these imaginary fairy-tale things, you skeptics should be rallying against you drink down, without thinking.

Your only skepticism is toward truth. And that is why skeptics lie, and twist, and manufacture falsehoods, and all the scientist community eats it up. (Like peltdown man). You aren't real skeptics. Only against what you don't want to believe.

When it comes to lies, if they please you, you will love it, and have no problem believing it. Even though it is absurd. Skeptics are absurd, when you really see what they are doing.
edit on 25-5-2017 by Tinystarlight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?


I fully understand evolution. The problem is that its theoretical and doesn't have much going for it in the "solid evidence" department

Its guesswork resting on assumptions resting on conjecture


Darwin's finches are a pretty good example of evolution in action. It can be argued as adaptation, but physical/physiological changes occurred and were observed.

Also, basically ALL science is theoretical. Science has no problem changing mindset when new evidence arises though.


Darwin's finches are still finches. They made variations in their kind, just like cats or dogs. But if you see those finches in action, they mate with each other and still breed other finches.

???

This is your answer? This is very dishonest.

Well that wasn't a reply to you (or was it?) but it was an example of actual physical changes of a species. Adaptation? Maybe. Then again, ALL evolution could be lumped into that sum, as evolution is basically survival of the fittest, and the best of the best win and continue.

You guys ask for PROOF, then when it is shown brush it off as non-relevant and false. I mean, how serious should we take you when the bar keeps changing?

Then you answer a question with nanananana I know it but I'm not telling.

Tell me, why is a single cell complicated?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?


I fully understand evolution. The problem is that its theoretical and doesn't have much going for it in the "solid evidence" department

Its guesswork resting on assumptions resting on conjecture


Darwin's finches are a pretty good example of evolution in action. It can be argued as adaptation, but physical/physiological changes occurred and were observed.

Also, basically ALL science is theoretical. Science has no problem changing mindset when new evidence arises though.


Darwin's finches is evidence that variations of an existing can emerge

Its NOT evidence for the other claims of evolution, that reptiles became birds or that land mammals became whales etc



edit on 25-5-2017 by firefromabove because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2017 by firefromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution


That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

Yes, "God did it" is less magical answer, right?
*eye roll*




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join