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: 37
14
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
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.



Yeah I messed up there.

Regardless, there's no complete remains of a missing link from this common ancestor. Considering the theorized amount of time that this lineage would have been, it is very telling that we cannot find one complete unambiguous fossil of this transition. It strongly insists there was no such thing as the evolutionary narrative.




posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Could you imagine if I said all _____ are dishonest? It's textbook bigotry.


I didn't say "All religious folk are dishonest" did I?

I said YOU guys... as in the religious people participating in this conversation... are being dishonest... and you are... blatantly... That doesn't mean every religious person is dishonest




posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


You are blindly loyal to anybody that supports your silly outdated religious propaganda. You don't care about being honest or following evidence.



Right here Coop... You even back Turbo for god's sake...

I mean when you support a flat earther... where's your head at?




posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Again, there is no "evolving into" anything. Life just slowly changes in varying environments. There is no end goal. It's not that complicated to understand but you purposely choose not to so you can spew your verbal diarrhea.


It's called 'adaptation'.

Not a species 'evolving' into another species, then.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs,
At one time I looked forward to our communications. It seemed I always learned something even in the most negative threads.
Now? I am not sure if your reading comprehension has faded, you have gotten lazy or just ingenuous. I hope it is the former, as that at least, can be corrected.
This will most likely be my last (and lengthy) post concerning Noinden and his faith based comment. Which seems to be all that you and your ilk care about at the moment. I really do not understand why the lot of you can not tell your "facts" from your faith. It is bewildering sometimes.
As a curtesy to you, and the respect I have had for you and your insightful post, I will try once again. Hopefully you will actually read the post I reference or stop being ingenuous (which ever the case may be, as I said, I hope it is the former).

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.

Barcs, this never happened, in your mind perhaps, but in actuality, it never did.
I was asking questions about a comment YOU HAD MADE (page 31, my third post on this thread). I wanted YOUR opinion, YOUR answer.
Noiden commented and if he would not have made a leap of faith by adding "Evolution just is! End of story" we would not be having this conversation.
Even with "evidence" how can anyone say something just is, end of story? There are no absolutes in science, at least not as of yet, because we do not know all there is to know.
See post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

No, actually that was YOU. In my third post on this thread I was asked YOU some questions for clarification. I was replying to a POST FROM YOU.
Your post in question:

Life just slowly changes in varying environments. There is no end goal.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...
My response to said post:

Serious questions:
If there is not an end goal then what is the purpose of evolution?
If there is not a purpose to evolution then why evolve at all?
"Life slowly changes in varying environments"- why, if there is no end goal, no purpose?

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...
By saying there is not an end goal you are saying that there is no purpose, therefore the reason for my questions
To which Noinden responds:

To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...
As I said, I could have accepted his answer up until the point he made his faithed based comment. I stand behind that.
This would have been finished a few pages ago but for some reason you and others felt the need to come to the aid of one of your own instead of continuing the conversation.
Soylent Green Is People and I had actually started a productive dialog and along came Noinden again. This time trying to attack what he assumed was my faith of choice.
I hope this will clear this matter up and we can move forward. If nothing else (to save face) you could agree to disagree and leave it there.
If so, I have a question:
What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for evolution?



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I think when Noinden says evolution just is, he's saying it in the same sense as gravity just is, or germs just are etc etc.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: Quadrivium

I think when Noinden says evolution just is, he's saying it in the same sense as gravity just is, or germs just are etc etc.

hmmm. You may be right but Do we know every aspect of gravity? Everything about how and why it works? How about Evolution?
When you tell someone "IT just is! End of story" you are making a statement based on faith. That is why I likened the comment to when a Creationist says "God did it! End of story".
Thanks for your input.
Quad
edit on 26-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Not necessarily, you have the natural phenomena we label evolution. Then we have a theory which sets out how said natural phenomena works. I believe the MES is the current theory.

When Noinden says evolution just is, his talking about the natural phenomena, not the theory which he does also get into as well as others.

Thats why i say its in the same sense as saying gravity just is, or germs just are etc etc.


edit on 27-7-2019 by Skyfox81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Skyfox81

Even if that were the case, which I do not believe it to be, saying "It just is, end of story" shuts down communication.
It would still be based in faith as well. The natural phenomena we label as evolution maybe replaced by something else in 100 years.
Look at all the things we thought we knew, as the best possible explanation for something, that have been disproven in the past.
It may be the best way to describe what we see at the moment, with the limits of our understanding, but who knows what the future holds.
To believe "it just is"in the context you are talking about makes it even more faith based in my honest opinion. There is no way you can know for sure but it is what you believe.
Does that make sense?
Quad



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Many years ago, the term science didn't yet exist.

They didn't use that term, until much later.

Our knowledge was gained by the people. They didn't have science degrees, and weren't deemed to be 'experts', in any way.


It all changed when the term 'science' came along, which meant the same thing, to seek knowledge, and truth, of all things unknown. But it's called 'science', from now on. Only those who are deemed to be 'scientists', are authorities on what is knowledge, and truth, and only scientists shall be allowed to speak of all knowledge, and truth.

I've realized, now, that 'science' was never meant to seek knowledge, and truth, of all things.

We've seen many benefits in the name of 'science', for sure.

They tell us all the time - thanks to 'science', ills are cured.

So we shall praise 'science', which has saved so many lives!


When 'science' was given credit, and praise, for curing the whole world of illnesses, when it was 'science' that developed these 'unknown diseases' in the first place, which is how 'science' magically developed cures for them, as well.

'Science' became our savior, our 'god', when the 'god' saved millions of people who would have surely died, from the 'Spanish Flu' which ravaged the whole world, back then.

There was never a 'Spanish Flu' before then. Perhaps this new, unknown to exist flu strains suddenly pop into existence, out of the blue, without any help from our god (formerly known as 'science)...

The problem with that theory is - until then, we never had another strain of flu, over thousands of years. We only had one flu. One type of flu, nothing else.

And that's why we called it the flu, which existed for thousands of years.


But magically, a new strain of flu came into existence, just before WWI began. It spread the new strain of flu around the world, soon after. The flu killed millions of people, before scientists developed a 'cure' for it. A miracle of 'science'!



To the issue of 'evolution', now...

This so-called 'science' that assumes all life on Earth 'evolved' from other species, many times, over 'billions of years'...is complete BS.


'Science' dismisses all the available evidence, proving there is no such thing as 'evolution' into other species, which is the truth.

The truth of all life on Earth being the same species all along, and ever since, destroys their 'evolution' claim instantly.
But, if they never admit to such evidence really existing, their claim will not be destroyed, so they never mention this evidence, at all.

Admitting to life being created by a God, removes 'science' as our 'god'. And they like playing 'god', that's for sure.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Many years ago, the term science didn't yet exist.

They didn't use that term, until much later.



Thats a great great many years.

www.google.com... TF-8

If the link doesn't work its below in bold.

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Scientia means:
www.google.com... 21817..22233...0.0..0.445.2084.0j1j3j1j2......0....1.........0i71j35i304i39j0i8i7i30j0i13i30j0i13i5i30j30i10.EUTFdcrm_kk

Definition of scientia. : knowledge, science especially : knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data.

Then you have the scientific method.

en.wikipedia.org...

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.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge

Like the actual scientists of this thread have asked many times.... what actual proof do you have using the above scientific method that evolution is wrong?

Even Raggs believes in evolution, yet cries for evidence and ignores the facts and belittles the reasonable ones.

Its like believing in god, yet belittling all the god arguments and people who believes in god.

Its confusing sometimes.
edit on 27-7-2019 by Skyfox81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 06:03 AM
link   
The scientific method studies all of the available evidence, to either support, or reject, their theories.

Does 'evolution' study all the available evidence, then?


Living species are evidence, their offspring are evidence too. Every previous generation of a species, which we have known to exist earlier on, are evidence.

A theory that suggests all species 'evolve' into other species, continually, should consider the available evidence I noted above, and see how their theory is nonsensical. Since no species indicate any 'evolution' into other species, never have, never do today, never will in future.


Humans have lived with many species which became extinct. They did not 'evolve' into another species, either. The species was gone, no 'evolving' happens when a species becomes extinct. The species is simply gone, period.



If 'evolution' was truly about studying available evidence, the best, most absolute, most abundant evidence, is right in front of them. They are utter frauds, obviously.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The primary reason 'science' deliberately ignores evidence, shows that 'science' has another agenda, which is....


To invent their own 'truth', and sell it to us, as the 'reality'.

Do you really believe that an honest scientist could observe all of the evidence on hand, and then, simply ignore it all?

A scientist should see there is overwhelming evidence on hand, with millions of living species as evidence, and generations of those same species, which proves that NO species has, or ever will, 'evolve' into another species.


There's more evidence proving no species evolve, than any case in history, and if they choose to ignore it all, they are frauds, and liars. Science rears it's ugly head, once again.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Ok, so given evolution has way more evidence than gravity, what evidence do you have evolution doesn't exist?

Why not flip it, what evidence do you have on your origins of life?

edit on 27-7-2019 by Skyfox81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: turbonium1

Ok, so given evolution has way more evidence than gravity, what evidence do you have evolution doesn't exist?



Neither one has any evidence, so it's a moot question anyway.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: Quadrivium

I think when Noinden says evolution just is, he's saying it in the same sense as gravity just is, or germs just are etc etc.


It isn't though. Gravity and germs are repeatable in a lab. Evolution being the origin of all species is by no means repeatable in a lab. We have been trying for over 100 years to demonstrate it in a lab, but fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, finches remain finches, and so forth.

Gravity is repeatable and observable in a lab, evolution is not.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

Right here Coop... You even back Turbo for god's sake...

I mean when you support a flat earther... where's your head at?



You're defending your bigotry by making another bigoted statement? All flat-earth theorists must be sooo much dumber than you. Does that make you feel better? Is that what you want? To feel some sort of superiority? That sort of thinking is the basis of all bigotry.

We're in the search for truth together man, no need for more separation. Both sides obviously feel very strongly that they have come to truth. Remove all prejudice and bias and things will be more clear. Obviously "religion" has pissed off a lot of people, especially if they were raised by hypocritically "religious" parents. No need to throw out baby Jesus with the bath water though.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Sad how this evolution theory divided people and makes war.



posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

Right here Coop... You even back Turbo for god's sake...

I mean when you support a flat earther... where's your head at?



You're defending your bigotry by making another bigoted statement? All flat-earth theorists must be sooo much dumber than you. Does that make you feel better? Is that what you want? To feel some sort of superiority? That sort of thinking is the basis of all bigotry.

We're in the search for truth together man, no need for more separation. Both sides obviously feel very strongly that they have come to truth. Remove all prejudice and bias and things will be more clear. Obviously "religion" has pissed off a lot of people, especially if they were raised by hypocritically "religious" parents. No need to throw out baby Jesus with the bath water though.


It's based on ignorance and fear of the truth, most of all. Insults don't refute arguments, they show ignorance and fear. It is an attempt to appear superior, while only doing the opposite.

And it is sad, indeed.



posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The scientific method studies all of the available evidence, to either support, or reject, their theories.

Does 'evolution' study all the available evidence, then?

Living species are evidence, their offspring are evidence too. Every previous generation of a species, which we have known to exist earlier on, are evidence.


I agree, otherwise other people can replicate their studies and prove them right or wrong. Such as Genome studies.

Us humans who cultivate dog breeds, this is small game timewise.

Us Humans being 'Humans' are small game.... 'TimeWise!!!"


A theory that suggests all species 'evolve' into other species, continually, should consider the available evidence I noted above, and see how their theory is nonsensical. Since no species indicate any 'evolution' into other species, never have, never do today, never will in future


What evidence do you have to support this?? Apart from assertions? Honestly? No hate here.


Humans have lived with many species which became extinct. They did not 'evolve' into another species, either. The species was gone, no 'evolving' happens when a species becomes extinct. The species is simply gone, period.


Sad truth here is.... i believe that we did what the British tried to do with the Scotts. (Braveheart Movie) [Breed them out!!]


If 'evolution' was truly about studying available evidence, the best, most absolute, most abundant evidence, is right in front of them. They are utter frauds, obviously.


Truly, I mean no offence or negativity. But is there any honest, scientific, reason, why evolution.... the fact not the theory is wrong?

Lets discuss like adults.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join