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.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 19
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   
So you are impartial but insult creationism and you think you are intelligent
Ak you are a clown. Not even a funny one

A fool doesn’t sound as foolish when he doesn’t comment, you would be the exception and you wouldn’t understand why?



a reply to: Akragon




posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't insult creationism... im amused at the song and dance of the creationists on this forum... not to mention the venom that you and others spew... especially when you have nothing to say...

Or you just ignore replies and repeat things that have long been debunked... and insult anyone who points it out

For people that claim to want to be as "Christ" your tactics and attitude are disgusting... though that is one of the many reasons I left your garbage in the past... where it belongs

And by the way im not impartial either... I think both are completely compatible... but I certainly wouldn't side with any of your ilk


edit on 6-8-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

For someone who claims impartiality you are probably the worst type here Ak



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Please do not reproduce.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Please do not reproduce.


Please stop giving your opinion. Remember, if you actually believed in atheism, you would know that nothing you do matters, because eventually all consciousness returns back to nothingness without a trace. So your opinion is meaningless, according to your own religion. Be a good adherent and stop barcing.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

For someone who claims impartiality you are probably the worst type here Ak




As someone who chooses educated opinions, evidence, logic and rationality over lies, deceit and blatant misrepresentation of information...

I will gladly take that as a compliment

My thanks



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

As someone who chooses educated opinions, evidence, logic and rationality over lies, deceit and blatant misrepresentation of information...

I will gladly take that as a compliment

My thanks


Have you ever considered the possibility that you are on the side that is misrepresenting the truth? Especially since you have admitted in prior posts that you leave the science to others... how can you know if you let the truth be decided for you by others?



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

No you were not talking to the topic. I've answered from you and your buddies that question many times before. So since you expect me to go back to all my posts, you go back and read them, and that includes all cited sources.

Thats the problem here, you guys do not read the sources provided.

Oh and again, if your opinion mattered to me, I would worry you called me names. But no, you are attacking the person not the argument. Again.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't read what is posted. You don't understand what empirical evidence is either. Your home schooling has failed you.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

As someone who chooses educated opinions, evidence, logic and rationality over lies, deceit and blatant misrepresentation of information...

I will gladly take that as a compliment

My thanks


Have you ever considered the possibility that you are on the side that is misrepresenting the truth? Especially since you have admitted in prior posts that you leave the science to others... how can you know if you let the truth be decided for you by others?


Another asinine post.

Here are the facts:

There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals which have published authentic research on evolution and related topics.
Leaving the science to others? Just who are those "others"? They're the thousands of scientists who have researched, collected data, analyzed the data and published their results. Thousands.

And just how many "others" do you and your ilk have? None. Nyet. Nada. Méiyǒu. That would include yourself.

Have you ever considered that you're living a lie? Have you ever felt guilty about using Christianity, the Bible and people who you hope are not smart enough to see through your garbage to commit fraud and deception?

You lost the battle a long time ago. Now it's just a matter of cleaning up the mess.


edit on 6-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Here are the facts:

There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals which have published authentic research on evolution and related topics.



None of which document an unambiguous example of an organism evolving into another organism. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes, finches remain finches, moths remain moths. Adaptation does not prove evolution.

Adaptation mechanisms actually disprove evolution. surprise me by not insulting me and actually engaging in this conversation. Here's my perspective on the empirical evidence:

an adaptation mechanism involves many biological facets. Most commonly, they are epigenetic. Meaning that these adaptations involve turning genes up or down to acomodate various environmental cues. Take for example altitude acclimation, which requires a protein Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to increase expression and create 2,3-BPG to allow your body to adapt to the varying oxygen levels at high altitudes. So here's the dilemma for evolution: what came first, the desire to go to high altitudes, or the presence of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to allow altitude acclimation? Without the protein that catalyzes 2,3-BPG formation, humans cannot survive high altitudes. So if some theoretical human decided to venture up a mountain, they would die without the enzyme to form 2,3-BPG. But how would that enzyme be coded for in the human genome if it were not needed? Do you suppose the genome would just pocket this enzyme just in case it was necessary later? Such is antithetical to natural selection.

This is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (DNA units) in length. So how could all of these mutations have happened to eventually create this very specific protein, when it wasn't even needed until a human decided to climb to high altitudes?

The more you critically analyze biology and check if its applicable to the theory of evolution, you realize it is an asinine theory not based in reality.tion mechanisms actually disprove evolution, but I know how much you fear debating real science with me.
edit on 6-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

As someone who chooses educated opinions, evidence, logic and rationality over lies, deceit and blatant misrepresentation of information...

I will gladly take that as a compliment

My thanks


Have you ever considered the possibility that you are on the side that is misrepresenting the truth? Especially since you have admitted in prior posts that you leave the science to others... how can you know if you let the truth be decided for you by others?


No... why would i?

See i didn't say i didn't understand the science... nor did i say i know nothing about it

I prefer to have someone that can speak to specifics about evolution so i don't say something that isn't correct...

Whereas i do know religion far better then most... and christians on a mission specifically having dealt with them my entire life as well as being one of you once upon a time... you don't point out something is wrong in their bible unless you're prepared to defend yourself... and i am not equipped as well as others in this thread to defend the specifics of evolution... but i have read quite a bit on the subject...which is why i generally watch from the sidelines

Unless of course i see blatant lies... or deceit... then i can't help but chime in... usually only to get insulted as you can clearly see... but thats par for the course on this forum when dealing with christians it seems

And before you jump down my throat... that doesn't mean all of you




posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I insist you chime in though. Don't fear being wrong, we're on an anonymous forum, it's the perfect place to make mistakes. The deeper you get, and the more you trust your self to discern on your own, the closer to the truth you will get.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Care to prove that statement? I mean with actual words and evidence of your own, not some creationist blog?



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I have and they, all 5 grew up on Hovind

Hahahahaaa😁



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't read what is posted. You don't understand what empirical evidence is either. Your home schooling has failed you.


From someone like you with such a genuine hate of science I can easily dismiss all your comments

You are a thief, I don’t understand empirical evidence, I disagree, repetable observable and testable, care to show that science in your theory of evolution
Didn’t think so



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

For someone who claims impartiality you are probably the worst type here Ak




As someone who chooses educated opinions, evidence, logic and rationality over lies, deceit and blatant misrepresentation of information...

I will gladly take that as a compliment

My thanks


From the guy who said he was impartial, really



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

See mr Goebbels, there you go again, with the big lie attempt. Your home schooling has not prepared you for the real world. Just like the child abuse of Hovind being forced on your kids is stunting them.

Like I said, you don't understand Science, you do not understand empirical evidence. You ignore every single source if evidence posted. SO no, go back and read my old posts. Or admit you are trolling here.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

For someone who claims impartiality you are probably the worst type here Ak




As someone who chooses educated opinions, evidence, logic and rationality over lies, deceit and blatant misrepresentation of information...

I will gladly take that as a compliment

My thanks


From the guy who said he was impartial, really


I said i wasn't impartial... in fact when it comes to evolution vs the bible version of the story theres not even a question in my mind... its reality vs fable

Now when it comes to God vs evolution... as i've stated, i believe they are perfectly compatible

Its just YOUR version of God that has no place in any science




posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Scientists discuss/debate peer-reviewed evidence. In case you don't know what that is, it's research that has produced data that is analyzed in the lab, confirmed through a quality control process and then published.

When you have a half dozen papers which fit the criteria described above, post them here and we'll "debate".

But I'm not going to debate your opinion. And opinion is all you have. Go to the philosophy board. Perhaps they can see through your garbage.

Once again, if you can produce published papers in recognized science journals that support your theory (note that I said theory, not hypothesis, because you don't have an iota of evidence to support a hypothesis), then we can discuss.

Until then, you are free to post you opinion. But don't ask a scientist to "debate" something for which you have zero evidence.


edit on 6-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join