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: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: cooperton

So I've noticed. He seems pretty triggered when someone has the nerve to think of the theory of evolution as a theory. It takes me back to an argument I was having with a teacher who was grammatically challenged. Just because they think they're smarter than someone without a degree in their field of study doesn't always mean they are.


And of course, you do understand what a theory in science is, right?




posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

Nice projection of emotion on words. As you've been asked. Do you know what the definition of a theory in Science is? I've linked it for you. However as you probably will not click the link.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

Your argument is flawed. NO scientist would use carbon dating for something 50 million years back. There would be almost no carbon 14 remaining. No scientist will say something 50 million years ago was carbon dated. There are other isotopes used.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'm not lying, I read it somewhere but what would my word matter.


It's a sad world where you can't trust people who don't have a link to a biased source of something.
edit on 2-7-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Noinden

I'm not lying, I read it somewhere but what would my word matter.


It's a sad world where you can't trust people who don't have a link to a biased source of something.



It’s an even more sad world when people get bent out of shape over being asked to substantiate their claims when discussing actual science. That’s how it works. If I write a paper, I use footnotes, citations and a bibliography because yes... you can’t just take someone’s word. It’s not how the scientific method works. It keeps people honest by having us show the source material we used and allows other people within our field to actually fact heck you and try to reproduce your results. What makes sources biased? That they don’t agree with your willful ignorance?



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Barcs

Can anybody prove evolution is more than just a theory? No. So what does it really matter?


And here is MORE proof of creationists regurgitating lies about something they don't grasp. A scientific theory is the HIGHEST standard of evidence and understanding in science. LMAO @ the "just a theory" excuse which has been spewed for decades. Cells, germs, atoms and gravity are just theories. Creationists don't have an honest bone in their bodies. Thanks for proving it.


but that just goes to show that humans haven't evolved into anything more than humans, thus throwing a wrench into the theory of evolution.


No it doesn't in the slightest, you are just repeating lies and you even demonstrated it by trying to pretend they definitely walked together when you don't even have reliable dates for your claims. You just say 30,000 years or 30m years. Just stop the lies. You have no reason to think radiometric dating is unreliable.


originally posted by: LSU2018
First of all, you're getting bent out of shape just like I said you do. Why am I a denier for not believing in evolution, but you're not a denier for not believing in creation? Do you realize how hypocritical that makes you look? On top of that, your analogy is terrible when comparing the sun's existence to a theory. Even if evolution is 99.99% true in your opinion, it's still not 100% true, which gives people a 50/50 shot at being correct. I think you're willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy for simply believing in evolution like you're told, but since neither one of us are 100% correct, we believe what we do and it should stop at that.


How is that "getting bent out of shape?" I'm just stating the facts, and you guys are completely allergic to facts. It's a shame.

You are a denier because there is TONS of evidence.

talkorigins.org...

While there is ZERO evidence supporting creation. LMFAO @ claiming hypocrisy. I go by evidence. Not my fault creationism has no scientific basis whatsoever.


Even if evolution is 99.99% true in your opinion, it's still not 100% true, which gives people a 50/50 shot at being correct.


Did you never learn basic math? 50/50 means 50%. Nothing in science is ever 100%, because we don't know everything there is to know.


I think you're willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy for simply believing in evolution like you're told, but since neither one of us are 100% correct, we believe what we do and it should stop at that.


LMFAO!!! You say I got bent out of shape, yet all you have are insults and generalizations. I've studied evolution for more than a decade. You haven't even learned the basics. Evolution is the most scientifically substantiated theory in the history of science!! Sorry you can't call me willfully ignorant when I have actually read the evidence and many many papers while you obviously have not.


How, without a doubt, can you prove they didn't live together.


WHAT? First, burden of proof is on the positive claim. Second, it's called radiometric dating and the fact that there are no mixed fossil layers. There has never been a human fossil found in the same fossil strata as a dinosaur. Literally ALL evidence says they did not live together. LMFAO @ trying to flip the burden of proof to the negative position and pretending it gives the claim merit.

/FACEPALM.

edit on 7 2 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Radiometric dating is used on dinosaur fossils, not carbon dating. If you weren't so intellectually lazy and dishonest you would know this instead of spewing more ignorance.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Radiometric dating is used on dinosaur fossils, not carbon dating. If you weren't so intellectually lazy and dishonest you would know this instead of spewing more ignorance.


When carbon dating, if a sample is older than the range of the dating, it will say such a result. Yet when dinosaur remains were carbon dated, they did not indicate that they surpassed the range of carbon dating, instead it was between 4,000-40,000 years old.



This along with soft tissue being consistently found in dinosaur bones and countless sightings and depictions by our ancestors indicate the evolution narrative is wrong.


^Russia


^Italy


^China
edit on 2-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I have no idea what you are fighting for.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

What are you fighting for and what makes you think spewing ignorance is an argument? At least I give facts. You guys just spew the same intellectually dishonest bull# from decades ago.
edit on 7 2 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

That crap has been refuted a thousand times on this website alone.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

What are you fighting for and what makes you think spewing ignorance is an argument? At least I give facts. You guys just spew the same intellectually dishonest bull# from decades ago.


Care to make sense?



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So why do you still have hope those claims are real?



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

He's not fighting. He is correcting you. Carbon dating is not used.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Now you are inferring something that he did not say.



posted on Jul, 4 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

He's not fighting. He is correcting you. Carbon dating is not used.


It was used. And it determined an age between 4,000-40,000 years. If it were older than the limits of carbon dating, the data would say that. But it doesn't, because dinosaurs existed much more recently than we are led to believe.




posted on Jul, 4 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

He said it was used on a sample that was 50 million years old. IT was not used for that. ALso since you posted a table. Post the source.

Hitchen's razor also shows you best prove dinosaurs existed more recently. In a way they do. Birds. But not in the way you are implying.



posted on Jul, 4 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

He's not fighting. He is correcting you. Carbon dating is not used.


Well I'm fighting for my life here.



posted on Jul, 4 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Now you are inferring something that he did not say.


Excellent, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 4 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

IF you try to punch up, at least have a plan. So far you've been nonsensical.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join