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: 36
14
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Which God is this again? There are over 5000 known in human cultures. Science is not a theistic process. So no matter how much you lot say "its a religion" it does not fit the bill.

I agree, science is not meant to be a religion. Yet many here, including yourself, make evolution faith based all the time.
You use terms like:
"It's Settled Science"
"It's a Fact"
"Evolution just is! End of story" (my new personal favorite)
These terms may fit with the simplest definition of "evolution". Yet many try to make them fit the entire modern synthesis and they do not but many have faith that they do.
They make evolution into their religion by doing so.
Their god is time and through it all things are possible.



Given Science will (and does) reassess it's beliefs, based on the data. When did your faith do that again?

Not once have I mentioned "my faith". You just constantly assume you know what I believe.
Why is it so important to you to bring religion into this? How many times, in this thread alone, have you brought up the fact that you are a Polytheist




posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so


It's all human nature.
Bias plays a huge role.
You only see dishonesty in "religious folks" because you are biased. Yet, you don't see it when someone puts their faith in science instead of God.
They act the same way as "religious folks", defending their faith.
I believe they attribute much more to science than what science actually claims most of the time.



Its not bias either... its the same old song and dance in all of these threads

Religious side makes a claim.... science debunks... religion ignores... repeats claim as if nothing was said... science repeats debunking and points to previous conversation where the same thing was said... religion ignores

Wash rinse and repeat

And around we go

God has nothing to do with this thread... as it has been stated over and over


Yet those on "your side" keep bringing their god into it.
You are biased because you don't see it. You won't call them out be because you don't see it.


No... the religious side insists on claiming that they have science as a god... which is blatantly false...

And i don't have a side in this argument... again, i just don't appreciate lies and deceit, nor does anyone else




posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
Please see the following:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 25-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Yeah I read it... I follow all these threads...

It is "settled science"... and just is... Facts on the other hand are hard to come by, but evolution is what we know thus far... Science changes with new discoveries so perhaps one day something may change in evolutionary theory...

Comparing it to religion is just silly though... you call it faith, but its faith based on evidence put forth by most of the scientific community, including the religious people that deal with science

Theres the difference... Science based on evidence

Religion based on nothing but ancient books... no evidence




posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Perhaps you should actually read a little more off ATS. Many here are far from experts.
It is not settles science by any means also it is not "just is". These are faith based terms.
Much of the evidence is speculation and assumption some is not.

faith
[fāTH]

NOUN
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:
trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance · dependence

religion
[rəˈlijən]

NOUN
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:
faith · belief · divinity · worship · creed · teaching · doctrine · theology · sect · cult · religious group · faith community · church · denomination · body · following ·
 

a particular system of faith and worship.
"the world's great religions"
synonyms:
faith · religious belief(s) · religious persuasion · religious conviction · religious group · faith community · church · persuasion · affiliation · denomination · sect ·
 

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"



posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Kinda like that statement eh...




posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


There's scientific evidence proving you are thinking wrong and there might be more.

Go back to work now so you can pay for more science to prove you are thinking wrong and get back here when you are done for today.

Science will keep you from lying.
edit on 26-7-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

It would be nice if you posted something that made sense once in a while...

Feel free to post said evidence you speak of




posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Oh no, I was wrong. There isn't any. I believe everything that is said.

Can't you see I'm wrong?
edit on 26-7-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Quadrivium

Kinda like that statement eh...


Not at all. You are being willfully ignorant or biase.
edit on 26-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

no... you assume the evidence for evolution is based on speculation

Yet you don't have any proof of that... but the opposing side has plenty to show their work




posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Quadrivium

no... you assume the evidence for evolution is based on speculation

Yet you don't have any proof of that...


Yes we do. There is no laboratory example of an organism evolving into another organism, despite countless years of selective breeding for fruit flies, mice, and microbes all around the world. So you have to take it on faith that it is even possible, and therefore it is a purely speculative theory.


originally posted by: Akragon
Right because everyone who calls you on your bull# is of course... a bigot


No no no, by definition your statement was bigoted:

"Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads"

which matches the definition of bigotry. You are incapable of even considering another opinion, and you have prejudice against an entire group of people as being dishonest. Could you imagine if I said all _____ are dishonest? It's textbook bigotry. This sort of bias is what prevents you from seeing the other side of the coin that you have been ignoring.
edit on 26-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
Again, read something relating to the subject other than ATS threads.
In the simplest definition evolution could be said to be Settled Science, meaning: "descent with modification".
Yet when it comes to the science of how, what, why, when, where, there is no settled science.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

You got proved wrong, deal with it. Instead of being honest and admitting you mixed up the context, you TRIPLE DOWN on your lie now. He was answering your question about purpose, you didn't ask for evidence. Just stop LOL! You aren't helping your cause.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Quadrivium

Here is your original post that was very clearly not asking for evidence, but asking about a PURPOSE


Stop yelling


Yep. You are being dishonest.


You accuse people of this all the time. Have you ever considered that you're the one with too much bias to see the light?


I was yelling?

I was highlighting the word that was relevant to what he was discussing before he misrepresented it. I literally proved he lied. The weak excuses you always make are pathetic, dude. You are blindly loyal to anybody that supports your silly outdated religious propaganda. You don't care about being honest or following evidence. Your conclusion is set in stone and you cherry pick to support it, ignoring most evidence that is inconvenient to you. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

edit on 7 26 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You only see dishonesty in "religious folks" because you are biased.


No, it's because they actually lie and I catch them in such lies on a daily basis. You can't even admit a simple mistake you made with context, instead you lie about it and I proved it. Coop lies all the time on here, he is inacapable of honest rational discussion. Whenever I take the time to give him a detailed thought out rational post, he ignores the entire thing and just quote mines one line out of context. This is why his credibility is zero, he's likely Kent Hovind himself.

You are merely the most recent example of such dishonesty. You aren't the first nor the last.


Yet, you don't see it when someone puts their faith in science instead of God.


The choice isn't faith in science or faith in god. Nice false dilemma fallacy!


They act the same way as "religious folks", defending their faith.


Last I checked, religious folk are NOT providing testable evidence or research to support their position, so this is yet another lie.


Yet those on "your side" keep bringing their god into it.
You are biased because you don't see it. You won't call them out be because you don't see it.


REALLY? You are the one that brought up purpose and derailed the whole thread. LOL!


edit on 7 26 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
www.talkorigins.org...

Go ahead, guys. Prove your honesty and refute one of these linked research papers. No creationist has ever done that. You guys simply are not honest. You won't even look at evidence that conflicts, you resort to straw men and ignorant lies instead of ACTUALLY coming up with an argument or reasonable case. Pretending that evolution is faith based and not backed by evidence is one of the most absurdly dishonest statements somebody can make. It's the same as denying gravity, cells, germs or atoms.

The title of the thread is: "Can you prove evolution wrong"

Now is your big chance!


edit on 7 26 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
www.talkorigins.org...

Go ahead, guys. Prove your honesty and refute one of these linked research papers. No creationist has ever done that. You guys simply are not honest. You won't even look at evidence that conflicts, you resort to straw men and ignorant lies instead of ACTUALLY coming up with an argument or reasonable case. Pretending that evolution is faith based and not backed by evidence is one of the most absurdly dishonest statements somebody can make. It's the same as denying gravity, cells, germs or atoms.

The title of the thread is: "Can you prove evolution wrong"

Now is your big chance!




I brought up why homology doesn't prove evolution on another thread and you never responded. I'll say it again. Homology, an example used on that list you throw around, does not prove evolution. You would expect phenotypically similar organisms to have a similar genetic code. There are plenty of discrepancies actually within the supposed homology that supposedly supports evolution. For example, the chimpanzee genome is significantly larger than the human genome... How could the chimpanzee evolve into a human if it lost about 130,000,000 base pairs of DNA information?

chimpanzee genome length, homo sapien genome length
edit on 26-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
There are plenty of discrepancies actually within the supposed homology that supposedly supports evolution. For example, the chimpanzee genome is significantly larger than the human genome... How could the chimpanzee evolve into a human if it lost about 130,000,000 base pairs of DNA information?

chimpanzee genome length, homo sapien genome length


Are you bleepin kidding me? Chimpanzees didn't evolve into humans! ANY BIOLOGISTS WILL TELL YOU THAT, they share a common ancestor. The length of DNA is irrelevant, and if you look at it:

Homo sapien: 3,099,706,404

Chimp: 3,231,154,112

It's a 4% difference from a 7-10 million year period and chimps also have 1 more chromosome. This is why your arguments get dismissed so easily. They are always littered with ignorant assumptions and fallacies. Calling that a discrepancy is laughable. There is no reason to think that a slightly bigger genome, poses a problem for evolution.

I await your one liner quote mine out of context to divert again from the research I posted.


edit on 7 26 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Can you demonstrate a citation that claims H. Sapiens evolves from Chimpanzees? It’s rhetorical because there is no literature that states this. H. Sapiens and Pan Paniscus share a common ancestor. That doesn’t mean we evolved from them. It means we both came from an earlier, shared lineage.




top topics



 
14
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join