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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

page: 23
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
What happened when all the 'experts' of science claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, while all of them knew smoking was lethal?

They also had piles of 'documentation' that supported their claim, and there were no documents at all, that opposed the 'experts' claim, either!!


You'd have insisted that the 'experts' documents 'prove' smoking is perfectly safe....without a doubt....


Same as you claim for the 'evolution' documents 'proving' it is true!!


To look at this 'evolution' crap, piled up to the heavens, is still just crap.




posted on May, 11 2019 @ 02:44 AM
link   
If Aristotle mentioned fossils of extinct species, long ago, why didn't he say they were dinosaur-like fossils, or massive in size, or anything like 'our dinosaurs'??

And if that's the best evidence you can find for dinosaurs being discovered throughout the centuries, that's an absolute joke!


Nobody mentioned dinosaurs for thousands of years, and Aristotle didn't, either.


You talk about showing evidence, but have none to show, yourself...

Show me the evidence of discovering dino-fossils in the past thousand years, if you can.

If you cannot, which is obviously the case, then why don't you just own up to being wrong? Since it's the truth, no?



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
What happened when all the 'experts' of science claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, while all of them knew smoking was lethal?


Can you prove that every doctor in the world knew that smoking was dangerous? You keep making claims and support not one of them yet people who provide you with evidence are the shills?


They also had piles of 'documentation' that supported their claim, and there were no documents at all, that opposed the 'experts' claim, either!!


Citations? Just kidding, we all know you don’t have them.


You'd have insisted that the 'experts' documents 'prove' smoking is perfectly safe....without a doubt....


That’s an impressive amount of predictive power you demonstrate to make such a statement so matter of factly. Well except for it not being remotely true.



Same as you claim for the 'evolution' documents 'proving' it is true!!


I’m still trying to figure out if you’re a flat out liar or you’re just completely incapable of looking at evidence objectively
Unlike you, I don’t simply repeat what someone else tells me is true. I actually look at ALL of the evidence. On all sides and all possibilities of a given hypothesis. Also unlike you, I’ve actually got a legitimate background in Paleoanthropology, did the actual fieldwork, did the lab work and have presented hypotheses which earned me derision by my peers only to Be proven correct a decade later as the tools at our disposal have improved. You come at this topic as if we were all handed some secret code book outlining the rules for what we can say publicly, what we are allowed to research, what Areas we Are Allowed To Study etc... Had you ever been to a conference you would known how false this premise actually is. M



To look at this 'evolution' crap, piled up to the heavens, is still just crap.


Says the scientifically illiterate who has yet to actually falsify a single aspect of the MES. You simply stomp your feet and completely ignore anything you don’t believe. At least I’m willing to look at both sides of the discussion and weigh the actual evidence.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Here's a source for you, please get a clue for once....

tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...


I can't believe you're actually trying to claim this didn't happen, but you did, and you see how wrong you were, now..


Many other sources are out there, btw.


Perhaps you should look for evidence, instead of being a pompous phony who holds himself as 'master of all knowledge'.


'Experts', the gods you worship, were liars, about smoking not causing cancer. This led to millions of people getting cancer, and dying from it, as well.


Don't tell me about ignorance, and lies, you defend the 'gods' that do it.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You talk about showing evidence


Here's a compilation that shows that dinosaurs were extensively described by cultures all around the world from all time periods:

Co-existence of humans and dinosaurs

This along with the fact there have been no complete fossils of any missing links clearly demonstrates evolution did not happen.

There are also the insurmountable biochemical leaps necessary for novel proteins to be made. Take for example titin, necessary for muscle function, some forms of it are over 100,000 base pairs long. There is no conceivable mechanism for how this could have formed, especially since it is co-dependent on actin and myosin to function. So the leap to create muscle tissue would have required all of these proteins to simultaneously form and find a way to organize in a structural way to create muscle fibers. It is absolutely impossible without intelligence.

Romeo and Juliet has 24,545 words in it.
The titin protein has over 100,000 base pairs.

It is more likely for a blind chimp to write a Shakespearean epic than it is for random mutations to have created the titin protein.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Bull#.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
dp
edit on 5 13 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: turbonium1

You talk about showing evidence


Here's a compilation that shows that dinosaurs were extensively described by cultures all around the world from all time periods:

Co-existence of humans and dinosaurs



I'm well aware that dragons were mentioned in ancient Chinese texts, depicted in drawings as a fire-spitting beast, or so forth....You suggest these dragons were 'dinosaurs', because they resemble the 'real dinosaurs', we later discovered in the ground, as 'fossils'??

The first problem with your theory is that they never mentioned any other beast, except dragons. They would certainly have mentioned other dinosaurs if they existed, obviously, if dragons were 'dinosaurs', instead of imaginary beasts of ancient mythology...or whatever...

Anyway, the point is that dragons don't fit with your dinosaur claims, because others weren't mentioned anywhere, at all, and they would have been, if they had actually existed, as 'dinosaurs'.


You have it backwards, as well. Dragons were the inspiration for their fantasy beasts called 'dinosaurs'. That's why dinosaurs look somewhat like ancient drawings of dragons....because dinosaurs were modeled after them!


The so-called 'cave drawings' and 'sculptures' of dinosaurs are so fake, it's laughable.


And of course, dinosaur fossils would have been discovered throughout history, every century, but they never, ever, discovered a dinosaur fossil in all that time. But, hey, they sure do find dino-bones everywhere, now, so we know it is complete nonsense.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   
When the theory doesn't involve a creating god it's obviously wrong.


When the theory is so messed up you start to think there isn't a creating god it's even more wrong.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
When the theory doesn't involve a creating god it's obviously wrong.


When the theory is so messed up you start to think there isn't a creating god it's even more wrong.


When the theory does involve a creating god it's obviously wrong.


When the theory is so messed up you start to think there is a creating god it's even more wrong.

this thread in a nutshell...

Aren't there any inclusive theories? Or maybe we make god hide in the frequencys? Just for now!

What about the stuff these scientist from ciba geigy found while playing around with electromagnetic fields. And what it does to seeds and fish eggs when sproutet/pondered. Might be interesting to imagine god works trough the frequency?

no clue
edit on 20/6/2019 by NoClue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
When the theory doesn't involve a creating god it's obviously wrong.


When the theory is so messed up you start to think there isn't a creating god it's even more wrong.


I prefer to go by evidence, not whether it supports or doesn't support the idea of a god... like how science actually works.


edit on 6 20 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   
True science has nothing to do with grandiose evolution theories. Absurd claptrap labeled as science, nothing more.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
True science has nothing to do with grandiose evolution theories. Absurd claptrap labeled as science, nothing more.



You wouldn't know true science if it slapped you in the face.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Then there's no point knowing science.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
True science has nothing to do with grandiose evolution theories. Absurd claptrap labeled as science, nothing more.



You wouldn't know true science if it slapped you in the face.


I know evolution is a slap in face of actual science, unlike yourself.

Science is about evidence, not ignoring evidence, which is evolution in a nutshell.

'Well, guys, over a quadrillion examples of NOTHING evolving might be a bit of a problem for our theory. So let's just pretend the quadrillion examples proving we are full of crap.... doesn't even exist. Then, we'll all claim some unproveable extinct species ARE 'proof' of evolution, which gullible people will believe, since we are all 'experts' in the field!'





posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


talkorigins.org...

You are going to refute the hard evidence, then? Go ahead. I've been waiting for over a decade. Nobody can even refute ONE of them. You can keep repeating your lies about not being science, or you can prove it's not science by refuting the research. Are you up for the challenge? Of course not, you will deflect and ignore it by repeating the same ol' tireless BS that you always have.
edit on 6 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Howcome we have genes in common with Banana plants?

Same ancestor?
edit on 23-6-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: spelling



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

Howcome we have genes in common with Banana plants?

Same ancestor?


Yes. Now are you going to refute the evidence or just keep posting ignorant one liners that show you know nothing about what you are talking about?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

What evidence did you give for banana plants and humans having the same ancestor?




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Which step in evolution got humans to fight evolution?

I mean we have people trying to reproduce through other people's waste exit and a whole bunch starting to chop their weiners off and another lot cutting the fat out their butts to grow a penis in a bold attempt to show the finger to evolution.

You guys always get stuck on the wrong questions.

Which race is superior to the other? Don't give me crap answers either. If evolution is true there is a superior race on this earth. Don't hide from the truth.

Don't say white, I'm white. My brothers have turned into pussies. I rate Muslims will win evolution with religion.




top topics



 
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join