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.

 

evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

page: 16
11
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Murgatroid

So education is mind control is it? You of course can demonstrate that? Education allows you to think for yourself. If you are willing to learn about critical thinking. Which is taught in many schools today. So why do you find this threatening?


It's funny, Stalin educated his people how great Stalinism was
Noindy, you have no idea do you




posted on May, 20 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Non sequitur is a non sequitur Raggy. Its pretty clear you also find hte idea of education threatening. You can't talk to the point of critical thinking. You and I have tried to engage (well I have) on points, and you dance back every time. You are the kid in the boxing ring, afraid to take a hit.



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The stupid thing noindie is you havnt been able to throw anything
I have asked questions, other atheist evolutionists have readily admitted there are no answers to my questions, that the questions havnt be answered by science, yet.
Then in your ignorance you come up with a stupid answer and claim you are right and the other evolutionists are wrong
You have nothing, you never have

Do you see the question in the op, you havnt answered it, you can't and many others have told me it can't be answered, you lie when you say you answered the question

Maybe one day science will find an answer, but till then

Every time you say you have an answer to this question, you call everyone else who said there is no answer a liar

You havnt got a punch never mind think you can throw a punch


Non sequitur, really
Good education is good
Bad education is bad
Dumb education is infective

Choose carefully

edit on 20-5-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You probably should have those eyes tested neigbour. You suffer from a form of selective vision.

I'm not an atheist and evolutionist is a term only used by creationists.

You asked " What are these facts that inform the theory of evolution " the rest of your post was creationist drivel.

I have in this thread an in others posted evidence .You never talk to that.

As I said, you refuse to take a punch, to your dearly held convictions. Rather you smack talk.

So go read replies, from atheists and non atheists such as myself.

QED



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Fact is he doesn't want answers in this or any other thread he makes...

Hes here to mock those that actually understand a bit of science

His best answers are "thats dumb" or just toss insults around... mainly because he doesn't understand anything about science

Thats what home schooling will do for you

This is the only problem with a free forum... stupidity is allowed to run wild because its still an opinion


edit on 20-5-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

You forgot the use of inane, that phrase gets thrown around a lot.

These threads will always have someone who can't keep up. Sadly a lot of these threads are started by someone who refuses to keep up.

Again for this thread, a search of google scholar, will provide 100s of papers about evidence for evolution.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman
I'm not an atheist and evolutionist is a term only used by creationists.

The word "evolutionists" as found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI website) databases of published articles. Evolutionists referring to themselves and eachother as "evolutionists", almost a 1000 results.

Since I think I've linked it before when you were around in a thread I take it you'll continue to ignore it and make that false claim about who supposedly ("only") uses the term "evolutionist". It's not very conducive for your credibility.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Again for this thread, a search of google scholar, will provide 100s of papers about evidence for evolution.

And a search for "evolutionists" on google scholar (checking the "articles" box, which is standard) results in 34,700 results for me.
edit on 22-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears
The article you used conveniently circumnavigates the real issues with these type of experiments when considering them in light of the storylines involving abiogenesis a.k.a. chemical evolution.

Appendix A

Teamwork for Life

...[I've addressed this under the heading "interdependency" or "interdependent machinery" before in this thread, so I'll skip it now]

Appendix B

From “the RNA World” or Another World?


In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains.

Source: From “the RNA World” or Another World?
edit on 22-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic



Another Theory Squashed

A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

The same counts for RNA (and DNA, but I assume the Times covered that with the phrase "more complex molecules carrying the genetic code"). That's why I asked before regarding xenogears' proposed RNA World storyline, what happens if you do these experiments in an oceanic environment (or near hydrothermal vents in relation to rnaa's video, which incorporates the hydrothermal vent part of the storyline at some point after referencing Zsostak's glorified soap bubbles that he calls "protocells", which won't do the trick of preventing hydrolysis for very long in such a hydrothermal vent environment).

Source: Watching the World

It's all rather dishonest to leave out the topic of hydrolysis in any RNA World storyline (xenogears) or hydrothermal vent storyline (rnaa) while one's basic education in chemistry (Noinden, Zsostak, cdk007, those who published their intelligently guided experiments with RNA enzymes that xenogears referenced) should have taught one the basics about hydrolysis (raising the question why I have to bring it up rather than Noinden or any of the others with that education giving a heads up to xenogears and rnaa about it; that's what you get with bandwagon behaviour). Time to start thinking about the origin of proper cell membranes to preserve and protect whatever starting material you're using in the storyline, rather than invoking Jack Zsostak's glorified soap bubbles who won't last long (enough) either in those prebiotic oceanic scenarios (nor will they accomplish what needs to be accomplished in terms of preservation until the next generation in those storylines). It's chemistry 101, even young earth creationists get it:

edit on 22-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Oh look a video, that must be irrefutable proof of.... I don't know hobbits? It certainly is not proof of what you think it is. WHEN you and other creationists use "evolutionist" you use it as if it is a belief system, not a scientist who studies evolution. So no nice try. But if you and your cabal of Luddites were applying it in the proper manner, it would not be a point I would raise.

You read how many of those articles? Perhaps like some of us, you might even be in some of them as an author?



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

This video is so ridiculous it's amazing that even YOU can't figure it out. If proteins cannot form in large amounts of water, why do we have fish, mammals and plant life in the oceans?????



It's a serious disease to be that dense. The guy should see a psychiatrist and get some pills.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Or maybe a grade 8 education?




posted on May, 23 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The following video is what Raggs and Co are implying.

At 45 seconds the uneducated ones talk about gravity never being proven!!!!!!!



Their so uneducated that they do not understand the evidence of the theory of gravity has been confirmed to be 99%+ correct. It only breaks down at the quantum level which has a different set of applied physics.

Aka, Einstein's freakin theory of relativity which is in essence the currently accepted theory of gravity.

This asinine quest to prove evolution wrong is in the same field as the Flat Earther's who say that we dont understand gravity!!!

But then Raggs is a great example of the education one gets when homeschooled!

Coomba98







 
11
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join