"Lucy" finished and debunked, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 2-10-2008 @ 04:09 PM by solomons path

Ah . . . fair enough Ashley. Admittedly, I am new here and haven't seen the vitriol, which you speak of. However, I know it exists out there (from both camps). Sad that both sides don't realize, regardless of belief, that we are all connected. All the hate and propaganda seperates us from that connection and causes grave inhumanities to be perpetrated (again, on both sides).

But . . . it seems everyone agrees to that individually . . . another story when the group gets involved.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 10:06 AM by dave420

reply to post by AshleyD

Is stating the truth insulting? I don't think so - and definitely not when I'm trying to help you.

Thank you for doubting my intelligence - I won't return the favour. I will, however, remind you that ad-hominem attacks are frowned upon by moderators.

You seem to have a large misunderstanding of the scientific method. Not to mention of evolution. That is not being insulting, that is simply summing up what you have repeatedly demonstrated to every single viewer of this thread. That's it. I'm simply asking you, for your own benefit to understand that which you attack. If you understood evolution, you wouldn't be making such outrageously unfounded claims as you do. You made your bed.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 10:17 AM by AshleyD

reply to post by dave420

Dave, let me fill you in on some things. That is a common tactic of yours- to claim someone 'doesn't understand' the scientific method or evolution. I have already corrected you on this many times and referred to it as a broken record.

Just so you finally know, I believe/lean towards:

The Big Bang as a solid model (the jury is out on the bang/crunch cycle but I do accept the BB).
An older earth/universe (I haven't made up my mind exactly how old but definitely 'old').
Micro-evolution/Adaption.
That Macro is possible but I believe if it does occur, that it can occur much more quickly than the claimed necessary time. The experiments seem to support this idea.
Evolution and genetics are closely intertwined and go hand in hand.
I believe in some aspects of evolution but remain highly skeptical about all species having a common ancestor (In other words, I accept aspects but not wholesale).

Ultimately I believe:

God did it. Regardless of how, a creator is responsible for our existence and the universe.

And that is what you have a problem with concerning where I stand. It's painfully obvious.

So please explain why you feel I do not understand the SM or evolution. You keep saying this to... well... just about everyone who believes in a creator so it would be nice if you could back it up this time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. What is it in my comments that lead you to believe I do not understand the SM and evolution? A belief in a creator (an unfalsifiable concept)?

This is your chance to shine and explain your incessant claim. I'm not a 'fundie YEC' nor have I ever claimed to be so now I finally demand that you justify your accusation.

*Edited to clarify and expound.

[edit on 10/3/2008 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 11:17 AM by dave420

reply to post by AshleyD

The fact you find such large flaws with the current understanding of evolution demonstrates, contrary to your claims, that you do have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Regardless of what you claim. You have demonstrated that beyond doubt.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 11:24 AM by AshleyD

Originally posted by dave420
The fact you find such large flaws with the current understanding of evolution demonstrates, contrary to your claims, that you do have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Regardless of what you claim. You have demonstrated that beyond doubt.

I was hoping for some specifics. And yes, I find flaws in the theory. Many do- even many of the non religious. It's not like I'm a unique free thinker or anything. It has nothing to do with not understanding the SM (And I believe you even realize this but won't admit to it- that line is just your shtick). Instead, it has to do with exactly what you say: Finding flaws. That then leads to questions, being curious, still researching, etc. So your claim remains unjustified and you are shown to have been talking out of your nether regions. Take care, Dave.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 11:43 AM by dave420

reply to post by AshleyD

You say you doubt the common ancestor. You don't have any evidence for that, yet there is massive amounts of evidence in support of it.

Unless you can come up with evidence, your doubts are irrational, and therefor unscientific. It's not schtick.

The fact you think you can find such flaws, when no actual scientists can, speaks of incredible arrogance.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 12:08 PM by AshleyD

reply to post by dave420

Dave, this is getting us nowhere fast so this will be my last comment to your trollish accusations you will not back up:

1). Doubt does not necessarily require evidence, however, I have still supplied many reasons throughout my ATS membership to explain my skepticism of evolution on a wholesale level and have explained adamantly my skepticism is not necessarily theologically based but science based.

2). I have seen you constantly claim science should be opened to questions yet anyone who questions even aspects of a certain field it is branded an idiot by you.

3). You are incorrect saying all 'actual' scientists (whatever that means- probably non creation scientists) have come to a consensus regarding evolution. This is absolutely not true. Although admittedly they are not in the majority, there are scientists- secular scientists even- that question evolutionary theory. Look into it.

On that note, this pissing contest of a conversation is over as far as my involvement goes.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 12:16 PM by dave420

reply to post by AshleyD

1. Under the scientific method, doubts without evidence are not enough to cast any doubt on a theory. The explanations you have offered are laughably irrational. No-one acting rationally can have the doubts you do.

2. The questions you ask have been thoroughly explained by science, repeatedly, for decades. And yet you still ask. I have never branded anyone an idiot. If you think I've called you that, then that's a problem with your self-perception, not my words or attitude.

3. There are no creation scientists, as creation is entirely non-scientific. The 'actual' scientists (as in biologists actively studying biology, not random people on random forums) have come to a consensus on the points you claim are dodgy. Of course they still are learning, but doing so through the scientific method, not gut feelings and baseless assertions. Are there any secular biologists who question evolution? What? There aren't? Incredible! The scientists who doubt evolution are not biologists, and are doing so because they, like you, simply don't understand it. Pointing to a geologist who doesn't understand evolution and saying "A-HA! Look! Where is your precious methodology now???" is a joke.

Run away if you want. That's not my problem. I'm only trying to help you. I can't help it if you aren't open to rational thought.

reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 08:36 PM by Horza

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by Horza

So many fallacious and lines of argument that are even contradicted by other Creationists ... I don't even know where to begin ... so I won't

Please do explain it to me.
I need help to jump the hurdles of evolutionary faith.

But, Clearskies, it is admirable to see that you will use an Islamic source for your arguments ... Very multi faith of you ...

I didn't know it was muslim, but, that's not the point.
The point is the fossils that show NO adaptations....

Hi Clearskies ... Sry about the belated reply ... I was away ... it's a public holiday long weekend thing here.

It will take to long for me to show all the incorrect information on this site and offer rebuttals. If you have the time, cross check each point this site is making with other creation and scientific data base and you will clearly see the fallacies and the inconsistencies.

A quick point -

This fossil tiger skull shows that tigers have been exactly the same for the last 80 million years, without undergoing any alterations.

100% WRONG.

The above quote from harunyahya.com is typical of the misinformation on this site.

Tigers (and all other carnivores) are descended from civet-like animals called miacids that lived during the age of the dinosaurs about 60 million years ago. These small mammals, with long bodies and short flexible limbs, evolved over millions of years into several hundred different species, including cats, bears, dogs and weasels. Approximately 37 cat species exist today, including Panthera tigris, the tiger.

source

The earliest tiger fossils date back to somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million years ago and in approximately the same geographic distribution as modern tigers had a hundred years ago (when they still maintained a substantial range) with the possible addition of Beringia - i.e. Alaska.

Lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars are all members of the same genus: Panthera and all represent radiations of a common ancestor that was probably morphologically most similar to the modern leopard and lived about five million years ago.

source

The oldest remains of a tiger-like cat, called Panthera palaeosinensis, have been found in China and Java. This species lived about 2 million years ago, at the beginning of the Pleistocene, and was smaller than a modern tiger. The earliest fossils of true tigers are known from Java, and are between 1.6 and 1.8 million years old. Distinct fossils from the early and middle Pleistocene were also discovered in deposits from China, and Sumatra. A subspecies called the Trinil tiger (Panthera tigris trinilensis) lived about 1.2 million years ago and is known fossils found at Trinil in Java.[12]

source

And there is a lot more info available.

This shows that harunyahya.com is willing to simply invent facts.

It cannot be used as a credible source.

Ok ... Clearskies ... the question for you:

What would you consider to be transitional fossil or a fossil that shows adaptations?

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^