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.
Lies, Lies!
Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”
..
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
What you posted in your belief system. It is not science. I have no objection to belief systems and religion. They make for some very nice stories. But science is pragmatic and objective. Unless there is evidence, there is no way to make any statement about the subject.
My analogy to the man who never saw an airplane still holds. You see something you can't explain. Therefore, it is a God or a spirit or something supernatural. Why not the simulation model which is being discussed by scientists? It's all speculation until there's hard evidence.
For the life of me, I can't understand your train of thought and logic. This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.
You reminded me of this. The allpoweful god of the airplane.
www.indy100.com...
I think this part is pertinent to our conversation.
"They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.” (Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html, accessed 2/23/2009.)
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” (In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.) Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record. Unlike the rather definite statement made by Peter Vlar: "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...." Just ridiculous. So ridiculous, that I doubt that Peter Vlar actually believes* what he's saying (*: thinks that that's the case), just another D.Trump type actor.
Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28
The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
*: Even the few examples from the fossil record that researchers point to as proof of evolution are open to debate. See pages 22 to 29 of the brochure, The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking [whereislogic: or the videos about whale evolution and "What kind of evolution" I linked on the previous page for more examples of deliberate deception respectfully and politely referred to here as "open to debate"; the fluke thing is not open to debate, it's plain old deliberate deception, knowing there is no fluke on ambulocetus but still showing that in the textbooks and propagandistic animation videos, then removing that fluke from newer or other animations and pretending the deception never happened in the first place, pretending it's no big deal, supposedly still evidence even without a fluke].
28. Science and Creationism—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” p. 14.
29. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, 2000, pp. 49, 85.
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee,