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.

 

The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I don't watch videos, especially ones using cartoons, but I'll be more than happy to look through the other link with text.




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

youtu.be...

Here is an interesting video.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

And simply ask for empirical evidence
Science by definition must be repetable observable and testable and if it’s not it’s a faith

I challenge most of these people to show the scientific method and they go a little feral in their replies
Creation, while it does have scientific evidence akin to evolution, is a faith, we can’t sell it a science, but neither can those who propose evolution



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: edmc^2

youtu.be...

Here is an interesting video.


Where is the empirical evidence Woodsta?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: edmc^2

youtu.be...

Here is an interesting video.


Ok, the cartoon on this one is better.



Now, I don't know why people are so easily bamboozled by a YT vid.

Look they have similar DNA, must be evolution.

Look my pickup has a similar frame with a car - must be evolution.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


As far as wanting to see evidence for evolution that's easy.

Let us look at exhibit A: Instances of observed speciation.


In this particular discussion, I don't think anyone really cares about the differences or similarities in a Horsefly vs. an Apple Maggot Fly.

Got anything as it relates closer to humans?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?

Do you understand what non living self reproducing molecules are?

You are conflating chemistry with evolution.

The argument is between abiogenesis and creation.

Which is a chemistry question. Not an evolution question.
edit on 25-6-2019 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: edmc^2

And simply ask for empirical evidence
Science by definition must be repetable observable and testable and if it’s not it’s a faith

I challenge most of these people to show the scientific method and they go a little feral in their replies
Creation, while it does have scientific evidence akin to evolution, is a faith, we can’t sell it a science, but neither can those who propose evolution


Xactly, but the questions is, which one is in agreement with true science? Which argument/statement is true, testable and repeatable?

Life to life or non-life to life?

This is where the true face of evolution theory is revealed. Scientific or otherwise, evolution has no solid foundation. So they will start attacking you because there's nothing to back up their claim. They will claim Origins has nothing to do with evolution. But the very definition of evolution says otherwise.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

That's a desperate video with no value. Got something by someone who's more professional and doesn't look like a stoner?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?


Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

He is a professional. A PhD holder in Paleontology.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Deetermined

He is a professional. A PhD holder in Paleontology.


Does he have a name where I can look up peer reviewed research without all of the condescending attitude and laughable videos titled, "Fallacy of False Equivalents"?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?


Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)



Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?


Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)



so, you understand and agree that RNA forms naturally in the environment? Even some extreme environments?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?


Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)



Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?


No argument there. As someone who played with chemicals, I get random reactions IF I don't PROPERLY MIX them in the correct proportions and correct sequence. It takes good knowledge to know the bonds between molecules. But that's not the point.

> without an outside INTERVENTION (knowhow), as in BLIND CHANCE, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?

Now we're not even discussing how RNA's are formed.

So care to answer the Q?



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?


Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)



Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?


No argument there. As someone who played with chemicals, I get random reactions IF I don't PROPERLY MIX them in the correct proportions and correct sequence. It takes good knowledge to know the bonds between molecules. But that's not the point.

> without an outside INTERVENTION (knowhow), as in BLIND CHANCE, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?

Now we're not even discussing how RNA's are formed.

So care to answer the Q?
you just said you get random reactions when you mix things in the wrong proportions.

I’m honestly going to give you a second chance to write that again, in a way that makes sense. It’s really important that you can do that for me. It is the point. Putting the right words in the right order is important for people to know what you are trying to say.
edit on 25-6-2019 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.


Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?


Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)



Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?


No argument there. As someone who played with chemicals, I get random reactions IF I don't PROPERLY MIX them in the correct proportions and correct sequence. It takes good knowledge to know the bonds between molecules. But that's not the point.

> without an outside INTERVENTION (knowhow), as in BLIND CHANCE, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?

Now we're not even discussing how RNA's are formed.

So care to answer the Q?
we know exactly how RNA is formed. We see it in the wild, and we can make them in the lab.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


we know exactly how RNA is formed. We see it in the wild, and we can make them in the lab.


So what? RNA only works as a messenger to relay information. We already know that life here on earth shares common living organisms found in soil, so how does finding RNA in the environment change anything as it pertains to evolution vs creation? It doesn't. Until you can reproduce an entire human from scratch, you have no idea whether we evolved from something else or not.



edit on 25-6-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join