It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Are Evo's Ignorant of Mendelian?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Howie47

So, why is Evolution, a very unscientific theory, (not observable, not reproducable) , taught in school?
While the established law's of Mendelian either are not? Or Evolutionist
choose to ignore them! Which is worse?

Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive!!

As for evolution being unscientific (lol) and not observable or are WRONG!

1) We are using the findings from evolution EVERY SINGLE DAY in modern medicine and gene technology. We are actively using the findings...which in itself should be proof enough that it's a sound theory. If evolution were wrong, we wouldn't have a lot of the meds we have today.

2) We have observed evolution multiple times. Tons of examples in this article.

As for being over 150 years, no one was able to "debunk" the theory.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Off-topic, but to me arrogance would fall more along the lines of claiming that you have personal and exclusive knowledge of the opinions and desires of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, opinions and desires that just happen to coincide with your own, and then declaring anyone who's triple-O being is different from yours is absolutely and definitively wrong.

And then expecting everyone to accept all of this, without you ever having to express any evidence of this creature.

When I tell you that I'm not going to accept your evidence-free opinion as irrefutable fact, no matter how often you make silly attempts to threaten me with your pet deity, that's not me being arrogant. It's me expressing common sense, that some dude who thinks I should fear and obey his invisible friend might not be the go-to guy for biology.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Atheist have no vision.


posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Atheist have no vision.


Because only people believing in a god (sry, I mean Christian god ofc) have visions, right?

Let's have a look at some of those "visionless" atheists, shall we?

- Clark Adams: American freethought leader
- Che Guevara: Yeah, no vision whatsoever, lol.
- William L. Moore: That guy protested against segregation during a time where it got you killed...and it did.
- David Friedmann: If you know anything about economics, you know that guy!
- Julius Axelrod: Won a Nobel prize for his work in biochemistry
- William Bateson: Person to come up with "genetics".
- Patrick Blackett: Another Nobel prize winner...obv no vision, right?
- Paul Boyer: ... you guessed it, another Nobel prize winner...chemistry this time.
- Francis Crick: Co-discovered the structure of vision, right?
- Paul Dirac: Nobel prize for astrophysics
- Sigmund Freud: No vision...ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
- Thomas Edison: Do I even have to say what he did?
- Richard Feynman: We're still using his formulas in science...Nobel prize too.
- Vitaly Ginzburg: Nobel prize winner
- Stephen Hawking: If you seriously claim this guy has no vision...well, you're a moron.
- Peter Higgs: Ever heard of the "god particle"...look it up!
- Sir Julian Huxley: Founder of WWF and first director of the UNESCO...definitely no vision.
- Sir Peter Medawar: Without this guy, human transplant science would be years back...pretty sure the soldiers who get limbs reattached think he has "no vision" too, right?
- Carl Sagan: No vision...SERIOUSLY??
- Claude Shannon: The concept behind the circuitry in your computer was invented by this guy. Without his VISION, you wouldn't be spewing all your ignorant crap.
- Steve Wozniak: Co-founder of vision, right?
- Warren Buffett: No vision...AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
- Larry Flint: LOL, no vision.
- Allan Pinkerton: First detective agency in the US...
- George Soros: Helped to overthrow communist ex-Soviet nations to instal capitalist regimes like in the West. Also donated over $12bil to charity so far...I'd say that counts as having a "vision".
- Sir Alan Sugar: 'nough said.
- Mark Zuckerberg: Founder of, no vision.
- George Carlin: RIP
- Neil Degrasse Tyson: 'nough said.

I could go on and on and on, there's dozens of atheist Nobel prize winners, activists, scientists, comedians, politicians, soldiers, and so on.

Your statement is what gives Christians a bad rep because it drowns in ignorance. You should really come down from your high horse and start educating yourself because if what you wrote is really what you believe, you're incredibly ignorant (& arrogant) and have a lot of learning to catch up on.
edit on 19-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

AshleyD's last post on this thread was in May 2008.

I don't think anyone, not even the admittedly formidable Ashley, can participate for very long in this ATS forum without realizing that Biblical creationism is senseless and untenable. HowieB, AshleyD, Conspiriology (who returned numerous times under different usernames and was banned each time) and the professional internet creationist who trades on ATS under the name BigWhammy were all major players in this forum long ago. We even had two people with biology backgrounds, HeroNumber0 and mattison, flying the flag for creationism.

All gone now, I'm afraid.

Though if you call loudly enough, AshleyD, who I understand is staff these days, may hear you and return.

Who knows, perhaps they all will. If, that is, they're still creationists.

edit on 20/12/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by Howie47

If your speaking of the slight differences that distinguish the isolated family groups. Causing scientist to label these tortoises as totally different species.

Typically if they are unable to reproduce with each other than is the point at which science deems them a new species. If you think that tortoises are the only example of speciation we've seen than you are gravely mistaken.

Any variation, however slight, is evolution. You mention the time frame as 30 years for the lizards, that's a very short amount of time and Evolution wouldn't predict a great deal of changes to take place in that time frame.

So, why is Evolution, a very unscientific theory, (not observable, not reproducable) , taught in school?

Not observable? Please Google Observed Speciation, we have observed evolution. I also find it funny that Evolution is not "reproducible", what do you want us to be able to do take a bird and revert it into a dinosaur and then change it back? Evolution is taught in schools because of the mountain of supporting fossil and genetic evidence that supports it.

top topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in