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: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


It is treasure troves of hilarity like this that provide anyone with the ability to read in complete sentences with endless hours of raggedymandingo entertainment! It's so funny, you don't even realize that you provided your own punch line! It's the part where you rant and rave about how it has citations from journal articles which in your infantile mindscape leads you to conclude that your position is superior because...SCIENCE!!!

BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT,
If you had actually read the citations and not just the fetid exercise in quote mining that you think props up your throne of empty promises and vacant bravado, you would have found that when providing proper context, your source doesn't actually say what you think it says. You're rolling around in your own feces and telling us that you actually bathe in gold bullion. Everyone who opens their eyes can see what you're covered in and everyone with a nose smells the sweet aroma of victory wafting off of you. It simply isn't your victory.

It must get lonely high fiving yourself in the mirror.




posted on May, 27 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, you can't argue. You can't cite

I have (in these threads) repeatedly posted evidence. You just rely on logical fallacies to make your points.

Argue the science. You can't refute DNA, Fossils, etc. You attack the person.


I just read the whole article, you dare to use the fossil record and call it science





And yes, I do attack the person, if that person pretends they are something and they clearly don't know anything about what they are talking about


You may want to talk to a professional about your penchant for self flagellation. I'm assuming you're referencing yourself as you're the only person pretending they are something they aren't (knowledgeable on the topic at hand) who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about (evidence spread over nearly 2 dozen pages of this thread and dozens of other threads across ATS).




The fossil record and you want me to take you seriously
No real,scientist say the fossil record


We reference the fossil record all the time. We as in real scientists that is. Something you are not nor could you become one with your lack of intellectual curiosity, penchant for lies and quote mining and fear and hatred of anything that doesn't swaddle your confirmation biases in warm tender kisses.


No wonder I make fun of you



Right back atcha Champ!


[ quote]
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [Emphasis added]
Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.


You mock someone else for citing Talkorigins but its legitimate science to cite Answers in Genesis? You're a laugh a minute big boy! And yes, despite citing the original source, I know this was taken from AIG because it's taken entirely out of context to make a point that was never made by Gould. Intellectual Dishonesty of the Hallmark of the day for you I guess.

It was blatantly obvious when wither you or someone at AIG replaced ellipses with semi colons to make it appear as if this is one, concise statement by Dr. Gould when it is not so. Let's see what the full quote and proper context was-


The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:


The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

Gould was making an argument in favor of Punctuated Equilibrium as another mechanism of evolutionary change. He was in no way making the point that you or your AIG cohorts want to believe he made.



“…our ability to classify both living and fossil species distinctly and using the same criteria, fit splendidly with creationist tenets.”
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), ‘A quahog is a quahog’, Natural History, vol.88 (7), 1979, pp. 18-26.


You and your rotten ilk have done such a disingenuous job at quote mining that either you have never read the original material or you just assumed that everyone is as dumb as your compatriots as this "citation" if you can call it that, actually comes from the same pages of Gould's "Panda's Thumb" essay that your previous quote mine just above was originally taken from. Apparently while giggling gleefully about putting those damned evolutionists in their place, you neglected to bother with the most basic due diligence to see if your source material was actually trustworthy.. It isn't.

It's merely another example of Gould extolling PE as opposed to Gradualism being the only model for evolution.


The great atheist and evolutionary propagandist, Dr. Richard Dawkins, actually admitted to the religious nature of evolutionary faith and the lack of fossil evidence for it.

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.” [Emphasis added]
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)


You just can't be honest in how you approach science can you?

In the above quote, it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.
continued...



posted on May, 27 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Per the last quote from Dawkins, this picks up after


"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.


One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'." You're grasping at straws. If you weren't, you wouldn't need to resort to such self degradation by lying and misrepresenting the truth.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Index fossils that were latter to be found alive
Come on buddy

www.icr.org...

You wouldn't know a scientist from a potatoe

Soft tissue from a T. rex
www.smithsonianmag.com...

But we can't find a fossil record

When a scientist worthy states the geological time scale is imperfect, I tend to hear and I don't take that out of context
I don't make my money from selling theory

Your fossil record is a joke and always has been the destruction of evolution



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You say and I quote" one good reason might be" and then claim I am grasping at straws
I asked for evidence, I made no claims

We don't call a "good reason might be" a scientific fact

Something you constantly ignore

Unlike you buddy, my faith can accommodate evolution if it's proven, sorry, your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny

How we going with the facts that inform the theory
Fossils are a joke



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Your faith accommodates evolution into your religious beliefs because faith is faulty.

You can use it to come to all conclusions. Even around paradox's that are contradicting.

Such as man was created in full, not evolved.

This is the problem with religious people, the god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller with every bit of new knowledge that they gloss over such obvious contradictions.

That way they dont have to feel sorry for themselves for all the harm caused in believing in a false belief. Because now its still true just warped and glossy like.

Master Coomba of Ignorance.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Great thread, man! Another awesome one where you can ask people to post evidence and then ignore it all. Doesn't it get boring being a one trick pony for so long?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It gets boring asking for evidence and receiving replies like your, offering nothing substan..
Offering nothing at all

Want to reply to the op, of course not"......



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

PMSL!
The honourable member had the opportunity to support his creationist claims in my thread, and failed, miserably lol.
He's got nothing, and only started this thread to troll members, hence the edit in the OP by mods...I know, I saw it myself.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Butttttttttt
No science😂😜👍😀😍😘



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Back attention seekin, how very CCG of you
As I said, I have faith, pointless offering you anything
Why do you NEED ME ccg
I don't get it

I don't need you

I may have a new thread coming soon, hang tight



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

At what point do people just stop responding to the troll?.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Barcs

At what point do people just stop responding to the troll?.


Yeah I shoul stop responding shouldn't I, valid poin
But I enjoy the trolls, makes me feel wanted



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Aww have you missed me babycakes? x
It's good to see you admit you have nothing but faith, then everyone can see how silly you are arguing that the theory of evolution is not a strong theory. Lots of gaps in the information, but a massively stronger theory than "God did it" lol



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Talking about you not to you.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Barcs

At what point do people just stop responding to the troll?.

This troll amuses me so I'll keep on dipping in and out of the thread every now and then just for the chuckle.

...hope you had a good bank holiday mate, what the hell was that ball in the sky making us hot today??? Maybe it was Gods wrath, it has to be, it's never sunny on a British public holiday, twice this year now...It's the end times, I tell thee!!!!



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Funny you want me to respond to the thread, I just want a response to my op
Have a crack
It's not about you



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

So you thought a personal attack would suffice as an answer, good on you
You will fit right in
Another....



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just Google "The theory of evolution" fella, spend a while reading and you will learn lots.
But nice one for posting the OP, it has been amusing reading, and interacting.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Thanks for your educated reply
No wonder it's just Britain now



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join