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.

 

Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Straw man? Umm read my post again and see the two quotes by noob??
its a strawman created by quote mines and used as an ad-homonim

triple wammy on the not very honest scale

and worse still used as an ad-homonim becasue you simply cant debate the science, Your view point crumbles at every step

i dont care what lemski said i want to make up my own nonsense about what the experiment wasnt about and deny evolution based on what ive made up!! - truley a remarkable failure of logic


You just automatically assume A STRAW MAN.


no we can see your bieng dishonest and quote mining to create a strawman to use as an ad-hominim attack



athiests say there isnt a NEED for a god,
not that there is no God, - Noobfun
so this i what you posted



athiests are saying evolution shows there isnt a NEED for a god not that it shows there is no God, well at least the ones i talk to and the fantastic four
and this is the actual comment in context

oop just look at all that context reappear as if by magic, and guess what evolution and any branch of science can only ever show there is no need for a God to exist no matter what my personal opinion if god does exist,maybe exits, deffinatley never existed or anything inbetween makes no differance, so to claim other wise based on scientific research would be dishonest either claiming it proves god exists or doesnt

and hey so there fore both statement can be true at the same time, context its neccessary!

wow if im a allowed to remove all the bits i dont want look what i can do with you posts


i love evolution darwin rocks, and i am dumb - Aermachi


if we forget all about context and only put up the words or even pick letters we want its amazing how dishonesty you can be


This is going nowhere

bye
you do like running away dont you

and still no ad-homonims used, im getting better


how about a picture to hammer home the point



[edit on 11/2/09 by noobfun]




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Matthew Collins works for the Fossil Fuels and Environmental Geochemistry Newcastle Research Group. He is someone who has been caught in the middle of this on going battle between the Atheists wannabe scientists and the delusion that they have all the answers to science and the philosphical theist who asks questions they will never be able to answer. The funding for his reasearch is what gets often argued about but Matthew defends his research this way:



"Dinosaurs hold an enduring fascination. We reported the detection of a protein in a dinosaur bone, published at around the same time as the release of Steven Spielberg's blockbuster, Jurassic Park, [so it] was bound to receive the full media treatment. Our report claimed to have detected osteocalcin immunologically and also to have found an unusual amino acid g-carboxyglutamic acid (Gla) in a dinosaur bone from immature (unheated) sediments. Osteocalcin is peculiarly suited to such spectacular survival, it is very abundant in bone, binds strongly to it and has the distinction of being the only ancient protein ever to have been sequenced (from 6,000 year old Moa bones).
Some articles suggested that the finding had brought forward the chances of successfully turning the science fiction of Jurassic Park into scientific fact. Elsevier magazine (2.10.93) stated "[The detection of osteocalcin] has set other scientists thinking, if it is possible for a protein, perhaps it is also possible for DNA". The Daily Telegraph even suggested that trend-setting restaurateurs may start serving dinosaur soup! The scientific community was more skeptical, Jeff Bada (an experienced protein geochemist) warned in an interview in Science News "I worry greatly about the stability of Gla, why would it remain unaltered for tens of millions of years?".nrg.ncl.ac.uk...


This was one of the reasons they had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection.

This is how evolutionists have themselves, kept Science back in the stone age in their own unique sort of way. This is why our country continues to fall further and further behind in Science because of this so called self proclaimed science of evolution. While they go on usually as quasi athiest's / science wannabe's who think creationists and ID'ers alike would dumb down Science if it were allowed to share in there hallowed ground in public schools. Yet it is the evolutionist's bias for anything outside the small box of of their atheistic worldview that impedes objective and honest discourse or looking outside of the box.

While we can assume in this case that apparently, some process has preserved proteins for what is unbelievably a very long time period, too long in fact, tens of millions of years.

So naturally the conventional wisdom of the inquisitor atheist says “How can this protein be so fresh when it is contained in such old bones?” So like most of the holy grail's they go on a never ending search to substantiate making up as many theories and out and out lies, even manufactured evidence for as many years and as many explanations for "the evolution of the week" excuses they can come up with.

Like noobfun's posts so chock full of arguably the most desperate attempts to find any reason to call me dishonest, he, like the rest of his commrades in darwins brothel of the brotherhood of bunk, disparage mock and ridicule the creationists.

They enjoy it, and we just shake our heads in pity for them as we whince in embarrassment for how they would feel if they only knew what it looked like to anyone reading it with half a wit and an average I.Q.

While they call us whacked out clueless dolts believing in invisible sky fairies while we see them getting away with stalling science progress because of their arrogance and disbelief.

Like the problem presented with the protien in the bones, we see the obvious and know it will be ignored and our questions ridiculed as the idiotic ideas of the "fundie" just like we have seen noobfun continue to assault me with.

In spite of all that we should insist and consider the possibility that they will never find the answer because they might be asking the wrong question. Maybe they should ask, “How can these bones be so old when they contain such fresh protein?”

Yeah uh huh,

What is Evolution?
Since there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes, we must begin by making it clear that the only evolutionary process we are talking about is the controversial one taught in American public schools.

While noobfun claims I accuse him of miss spelled words as the reason I have put him on ignore, it goes much further than mere typos and mis-spelled words. It is that after years of debating Atheist's who invariably to the point of being "militant" in the defense of the TOE (* hence fourth will be known as "the theory of evolution" or "TOE"*) it is his suggestions that I present proof of anything when I am not the one presenting a claim for the TOE. I, like many others on this board, have seen no evidence what so ever for the TOE and continue to see the same typical tactics used by the almost cult like followers of this science, to use it to advance Atheism.

The same semantics, circular logic, and attacks on those challenging it as daft "xtians" or "fundies" and this I have seen with so much zealotry, not unlike you would see at a religious revival tent only much more sarcastic and making unecessary comments that do nothing for this listener and reader to give me a reason I would see the TOE as good scientific dialogue when
You see, this is where Noobfun reaches far back to old posts where my admitting I believed in evolution, he, quite deliberatly I might add, takes this meaning completely out of context attempting to portray me as a "dishonest" person so to impeach my otherwise reasonably rationalized and polite dialogue in THIS thread since he can't corale me into a corner in this argument, he uses what he deems are injustice from the past to contaminate the readers opinion of me in the present thread.

He does this because he thinks YOU, the gentle reader, whether involved in this thread or just lurking, won't notice his intent.

Why he does this is perhaps because he thinks it works and that it won't get seen for what it is.

What is so ironic is that it happens to be the exact form of intellectual dishonesty he accuses me of.

It doesn't bother me that much because I happen to think his style of debate speaks for itself and I don't have to waste time using tactics to disparage him but I will keep things as simple as I can as I continue to give substantial reason we can all take the claims of evolution with a grain of salt.

While he trys to cast me as someone who is using dirty tricks of equivocation, (and again noobfun does this quite deliberately, moreover completely out of context,) he claims I have said I am an "evolutionist".

I never said I was an evolutionist but merely believed evolution exists, HOWEVER, as I have said before and like my posts here, quite deliberately again, noobfun LEAVES that out in the same voice he calls me "dishonest" .

Now rather than degrade into a tit for tat I said she said, exercise in circumlocution with my interlocutors, Ill just, again, offer my side of this clear and intentional attempt to win his arguments by hook or crook. But when it comes to the facts and the evidence, and you want to get involved working with noobfun, don't just make talking points where everyone is so obviously on one side of the argument even mentioning the side you are on by name like some cheerleader with your pom poms.

Get involved.

Get engaged, but don't expect me to do all the work as Noobfun and his groupies have demanded I do for them.

I asked three questions that have not been acknowledged, much less adressed and I have proven that I not only knew what lemski's experiments were for and about, my statement about the e-coli still being e-coli was again taken totally out of context in a question noob asks saying "what part of evolution said they would be anything else?"

The part that says, given enough time and enough environmental pressures they will become another species. Yet when we look at the fruit flys or the e-coli in that fast replicating world of mutating mircoscopy, we see they haven't changed a bit.

That their deciding to eat citrate was like many humans would devolve into if trapped in a mineshaft buried alive with their co-workers or those trapped in antarctica or the himalaya's after a plane crash.

Most humans in these situations starve to death, and then some, do like the bacteria did, who couldn't stomach the idea of eating citrate. While most of us would rather die than do what I am about to suggest, SOME humans have become cannibalistic eating the only thing available they could possibly survive on to stay alive.

In either case, the point is, with the exception of a variable limiting the amount of change we would see, the bacteria won't be looking much different and will never, ever, diverge into anything else but what they are looking just like they are now.

When you think about it, 2008 was just another dismal abysmal year for this dead theory called evolution so advanced in the process of its own rigormortis.

Like the science it has hijacked since, we see the wrong questions being answered and by the wrong people. If yo uare like most of us, anyone thinking noobfun makes sense is someone he doesn't have to convince. It ain't hard selling drugs to an addict and it ain't hard getting an atheist to agree with evolution much less anybody who is a buddy of noobfun.

in 2008 the Mars missions did not find any hint of past or present life on Mars. Nobody discovered a new human ancestor. They didn’t discover any missing links of any kind, for that matter but we sure seen great counterfiets.

In fact, while I'm talking about it, I will take this idea they don't ask the right questions even further. That while noobfun adds all his sarcastic embellishments using such often used analogies like the flying spaghetti monster or dawkins saying flying tea pots and sky fairies etc,.

It isn't the creationist who is naive and believes in the noodles or appendages of the spagghetti monsters, It is the evolutionist.

In fact is the very honest admission that our belief in a creator which is supernatural which disqualifies creation science from passing the scientific method and also why Evolution fears to tread to the "Origin" of man as we have seen repeated ad-infinitum thoughout this thread. They won't got there if they want to pass the scientific method without tripping on the logical fallacy that kills ID and creation everytime. The logical fallacy of assuming the consequent. While noob keeps bringing up such Character assasination about my honesty, it is the evolutionist who would believe in unicorns and flying tea pots before believing in God.

Yes if I told you they had such a fossil of a spagtthetti monster, you can bet the Christian would be very skeptical but if it were to prove evolution! Ha ha ha they are suckers for this kind of sophistry and like most of the icons of evolution and the videos so easily debunked noobfun has provided using so many circular semantics it would make you dizzy.

I would be more skeptical about such evidence than evolutionists have shown themselves to be in the past. For example, evolutionists accepted the Piltdown Man fraud for 40 years before someone looked at the teeth closely enough to see that someone had shaped them with a file.

If someone found a pig's tooth, and claimed it came from Nebraska Unicorn, that definitely would not be sufficient evidence to make me start believing in unicorns. I need more evidence than a single tooth. I guess that makes me more skeptical than the evolutionists who accepted a pig's tooth as evidence of Nebraska Man.

Then there was Java man and cro-magnan man neanderthalman and who could forget lucy!! We all remember seeing and hearing about them in Science classes but you don't hear about them not only being found to be deliberate frauds in most cases but so much fraud in fact, that selling manufactured feathered fossils from china has become an industry in and of it self.


Back when I was in Grade School I imagine many years before Noobfun, the theory was taught that we came from the primordial soup and they were very busy working on re-creating that soup to show life started there.

After that failed many times and they couldn't prove so much so OBVIOUSLY beyond our capabilities

Yet our Biology books in public schools are littered with this kind of specious and suspicious lies pictorialized and sensationalized as proofs with artists renderings depicting the typical cave man

when bipedal man has been around so long that we have seen his footprints fossilized that the theory of Darwin and its blind faithful, fail to realize.
That 25,000 - 30,000 years ago, man using tools as delicate to forge as threading a string through the eye of a sewing needle, may be disbelieved by some saying we were still looking like a geico insurance character back then.

Looking for evidence like that is would be like finding a needle in a haystack, however, sometimes,

sometimes we find that needle.



. It doesn't stop there, the deer example is true for all species.

In any population, natural selection only eliminates those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."


This presented a problem for Dawinists like "punctuted equilibrium" had filled the gaps of sudden and intact species of the many fossils found in during the cambrian explosion, it was, as is all of darwinists claims, a bit of a stretch by anyones sense or imagination. The deferring of a plausible explanation for gradualism had been blown out of the water for these so called men of science when the addition of the phrase "given enough time" was used as described by small changes accumulating over time and would take so long we don't live long enough to see them. Many creationists, myself included have said, simply, that isn't our fault and besides,, using "time" as an answer to it all was as simplistic to us, as our saying "God did it", was to Darwinist's.

I have seen so many arguments and noobfun has said nothing that cannot be blown out of the water. He still won't answer the question's about the pitri dish where I asked how long would it take for the bacteria to turn into fish and the reason he can't answer that is the same reason ID fails for assuming the consequent.

You see he can't say how long it will take because they simply do not know and like the protien brought up in the begining of this post, evolutionists never fail to remind us just how wrong it is to throw the theory out with no shortage of excuses and no expletive too vulgar or disrespectful to call anyone who would disagree with this sacred cow of science, this albatross of ignorance the very milstone on the neck of every public school student trying to make sense of so many questions in other science's outside of biology that were now contradicting evolution that athgeists had to hijack those too.

Soon we saw more Atheist's attacking quantum physics and cosmology buffs in chatrooms where they would talk about the intricate and perfectly tuned cosmos but were ridiculed into the more Darwinian desired behavior and the more Darwinian or Atheistic,, worldview.

Why were they doing this ?

Wel like most Science that may have discoveries that are inconsistent with the TOE, someone asked in this thread if they could be shown an African Elephant fossil from 150 million years ago they would be convinced evolution was bunk.

Well Cosmology can't give you that elephant for evolution but the elephant is in your living room and you can't see that one.

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly large which would mean that the earth would be really hot, in fact,,

molten hot.

Did African Elephants walk around the molten 1200 degrees Celsius earth? Did anything for that matter.

NOPE


No and then we have the moon escaping our orbit where 150 million years ago the tides would have kept land masses under water and we wouldn't be here.

150 years after Darwin, and if you look only as far back as three years ago the arguments on this very forum, we see how the arguments tactics are the same but the theory and the evidence for that theory has changed. For instance:

They needed hard evidence of fish to tetrapod evolution to be born. Lo N behold and just in time for the Dover VS Kitzmiller trial, they have given us "TIKTAALIK," and became the definitive proof for transitional fossils proving the TOE's macroevo tenet.

Or was this just this years hoax like the Piltdown man was used in the Scopes monkey trial of the 1960's.

Well I wouldn't say it was an intentional hoax but I will say that we can expect more of this kind of rush to proof BS that Darwinists are so guilty of since Haekle and his Bogus embryos were used to keep Darwins theory from being debunked along with the Lamarkism theory he spun it off of.

Never mind that Tik was only one fossil or that it could not have possibily walked on land. Darwin's Ministry of Art was called in and soon "artists renderings" popped up complete with pictures of Tiktaalik crawling out of the water along some prehistoric shore. Never mind that Archaeopteryx with fully formed wings and feathers couldn't possibly explain the evolution of wings and feathers. Noobfun remembers as do many supporting the TOE It was now a debate stopper and Darwitts threw it out with reckless abandon.

What has always been curious to us is "how could all of this arrogance come from half a fossil?

That's right. The fossil was only half complete.

No back "legs" or tail were found, but that didn't stop the Ministry of Art from dutifully depicting Tik with four "legs" and a tail as it crawled out of the water.

What was even more curious was that the front fins of Tik were just a handful of disconnected bone fragments. Never mind Lovejoy taking power tools to the pelvis of Lucy to make it fit his preconceived notion of what it should look like.



Never mind that much the same things that were now being said about Tik were said about Coelacanth and proved to be utterly false. They will say "we expected this" or as they did with the now forgotten Coelacanth, will they simply toss Tiktaalik into the transitional trash bin because while they NEVER admit it, while they come off so much like the knowitalls I have come to know over the years, they foget the past fakes frauds and fables and move to the latest new fantasy,,

Panderichthys!

A recent quote from Nature Magazine article had finally relegating Tik to an evolutionary footnote. That doesn't mean you still won't have it thrown in your face as proof for transitional fossils. The idea was to argue that fossils like that were so hard to come by as they went along explaining the difficulty there was for obtaining any fossils let alone a transitional one hence the need for a new shift in the TOE they introduced puntuated equilibrium and now that has been found to be flawed not many use that argument anymore.


When it comes to ANYTHING creation Science says, even as far back as Genesis we see "SOMEONE knew enough to know MAN would be the top of the food chain. Man would have dominian of the beasts of the earth.

That ONLY man could have lived and dominated dinosaurs and they are spoken of in the Bible also.

That only MAN is the only living being on earth that ride on the top fin of killer whales and only MAN has the King of Beast the Lion jumping through hoops and Grisley Bears walking on Balls in Circus acts while Elephants move logs for loggers in india.

That when the Bible talks about dragons and behemoths and leviathans, etc, we see the same ignorance by evolutionists who might be missing the point


Soon news of the controversial carcass also came to the attention of some strict creationists, who suggested that the "likely plesiosaur" supported their young-earth position (Swanson 1978; Taylor 1984; Peterson 1988). After all, they seemed to imply, if a creature supposedly extinct for millions of years can turn up in a fishing net, how can we trust anything geologists tell us?

However, even if a modern plesiosaur were confirmed, it would not threaten the concept of evolution. After all, many other modern animal groups existed during the Mesozoic Era, such as crocodiles, lizards, snakes, and various fish. Most of these groups are well represented in the fossil record leading to the present time, but some creatures, such as the Coelacanth and Tuatara were once thought to have been extinct for tens of millions of years, only to be later found alive and little changed in modern times. These cases emphasize the incompleteness of the fossil record and the remarkable stasis of some animal groups, but are not grounds for upheavals in evolutionary thought.


Oh never that!



This is a plesiosaur, but I am certain Darwinists here like they did when this beast was discovered, will say it is a shark of some kind. It really doesn't matter, as BOTH have been around millions of years and guess what,,

they ain't changed much either.










[edit on 11-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun



and still no ad-homonims used, im getting better


how about a picture to hammer home the point





What point noob? that you're a troll?




[edit on 11-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

no we can see your bieng dishonest and quote mining to create a strawman to use as an ad-hominim attack



You don't know what an ad hom is then but you sure know how to mistake anything said as one



athiests say there isnt a NEED for a god,
not that there is no God, - Noobfun
so this i what you posted



athiests are saying evolution shows there isnt a NEED for a god not that it shows there is no God, well at least the ones i talk to and the fantastic four
and this is the actual comment in context


Ha ha yeah riiight noob like I had to add all that extraneous pfffle when you subscribe to BOTH athesim AND evolution so it makes no difference



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Sharks are perfect for what they do and do not need to evolve. Humans still evolve. In fact right now they are finding people Immune to AIDS. What do thay have in common? Their ancestors were immune to the Black Plague. Humans today are literally giants compared to those 2,000 years ago. Goliath? Could have been 6foot tall. Back then that would be a giant. Today you have to top 7 foot before people notices your height.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
Sharks are perfect for what they do and do not need to evolve. Humans still evolve. In fact right now they are finding people Immune to AIDS. What do thay have in common? Their ancestors were immune to the Black Plague. Humans today are literally giants compared to those 2,000 years ago. Goliath? Could have been 6foot tall. Back then that would be a giant. Today you have to top 7 foot before people notices your height.


I answered all these before and the idea that sharks are perfectly adapted to their environment is the same excuse darwinists use for all living fossils when many of them had so many environmental pressures they were thought to be EXTINCT!

But they seem to let that slide right over their heads



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
[

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You do not know what an ad hom is then but you sure know how to mistake anything said as one


Ad-homonym a personal attack made against the opponent to discredit them rather then address actual points of debate

so you used a quote mine to build a false argument


When you can stop contradicting yourself
no contradictions when taken in context .. then discredited the weak position you had falsely created with a personal attack against my credibility founded on nothing more then dishonest quote mines and strawmen

i think it's a very accurate representation of the use of quote mines to construct strawmen to be used in an ad-homonym attack, because you simply did not touch on the points i raised just called names and said i did not write it blah blah

when i had made no such claim about your authorship



Ha ha yeah riiight noob like I had to add all that extraneous pfffle when you subscribe to BOTH athesim AND evolution so it makes no difference
what i subscribe to makes no difference both are valid statements

when taken in context as stated clearly and honestly science shows that there is no need for a god to exist, evolution being scientific also shows the same

so to claim there is no god because evolution shows this would make me a liar ... to claim science shows god exists would make me a liar

so wether i subscribe to atheism and evolution and Christianity and evolution or Christianity and the great cosmic duck that laid the universe in an egg

the first statement with the 'piffle' added is a honest statement on what can be derived from the evidence

the first statement without the 'piffle' is a dishonest attempt to undermine your opponent through personal attack and again to convert the argument to the false dichotomy of god OR evolution when neither are mutually exclusive

theistic evolution for the win


but hey why let something like logical fallacies get in the way of a poor argument and dishonesty

p.s. nice plesiosaur
ive got a video around here with a piece of grass .. i mean a 'homonid of some sort appearing to walk away from some kid' around here somewhere .....

well ive got a nice double post of comedy to debunk,



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
[

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You do not know what an ad hom is then but you sure know how to mistake anything said as one


Ad-homonym a personal attack made against the opponent to discredit them rather then address actual points of debate

so you used a quote mine to build a false argument


When you can stop contradicting yourself
no contradictions when taken in context .. then discredited the weak position you had falsely created with a personal attack against my credibility founded on nothing more then dishonest quote mines and strawmen

i think it's a very accurate representation of the use of quote mines to construct strawmen to be used in an ad-homonym attack, because you simply did not touch on the points i raised just called names and said i did not write it blah blah

when i had made no such claim about your authorship



Ha ha yeah riiight noob like I had to add all that extraneous pfffle when you subscribe to BOTH athesim AND evolution so it makes no difference
what i subscribe to makes no difference both are valid statements

when taken in context as stated clearly and honestly science shows that there is no need for a god to exist, evolution being scientific also shows the same

so to claim there is no god because evolution shows this would make me a liar ... to claim science shows god exists would make me a liar

so wether i subscribe to atheism and evolution and Christianity and evolution or Christianity and the great cosmic duck that laid the universe in an egg

the first statement with the 'piffle' added is a honest statement on what can be derived from the evidence

the first statement without the 'piffle' is a dishonest attempt to undermine your opponent through personal attack and again to convert the argument to the false dichotomy of god OR evolution when neither are mutually exclusive

theistic evolution for the win


but hey why let something like logical fallacies get in the way of a poor argument and dishonesty

p.s. nice plesiosaur
ive got a video around here with a piece of grass .. i mean a 'homonid of some sort appearing to walk away from some kid' around here somewhere .....

well ive got a nice double post of comedy to debunk,




yeah whatever noobfun.. I told you, I quit reading your posts so I hope you don't go to too much trouble splitting hairs about my dishonesty and all that other "stuff" you are criticizing erroneuously.

Oh and by the way,, if you really think I am ad-hom'ing you all over the place,, don't be shy, alert a mod or quit making the accusations. I don't think I have been anything less than rational in this entire thread. Ill tell ya why I say this, is because you are begining to make this thread look like it is a thread about me.

I have already been told I have kept mine well within the lines of giving you and everyone on this thread a measure of respect, inspite of your incessant accusation of my intentional dishonesty

Having said that, either alert them of my alleged personal attacks,

or I will, it's up to you




[edit on 11-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I answered all these before and the idea that sharks are perfectly adapted to their environment is the same excuse darwinists use for all living fossils when many of them had so many environmental pressures they were thought to be EXTINCT!
ahh here come the ceolcanth argument

i bet your not going to use the correct taxonomic names are you? becasue if you do that then people might notice ceolcanth isnt a species of fish its an umbrella term for an entire order that covered over 30 species and they are all exitinct except two, and those two arnt found in the older fossil record they are relative newbies .. so while the 2 survivors of the order celocanth are living fossils, its not actually them that are the living fossils but thier order which was thought to be totally extinct

sharks are not perfectly adapted to thier enviroment but they are rather close so they are/will still adapt but any major changes lessens their fitness so is weeded out, same with crocs natrual selection works for both change and stability depending on the situation...

and yes they have changed since 65 million years ago, what others do you want to pull out? horse shoe crabs? they have changed .... anymore or?

pick a time scale on shark evolution and lets go play compare the anatomy ok?


But they seem to let that slide right over their heads
what that you dont understand the differance between a taxonomic order and a species?

or that you are verbatum repeating the standard dodgy creationist arguments?

that they ahev evolved and if you look beyond the artit impression it easy to notice(maybe thats why science dot use artist impressions in thier research or peer reviewed papers ....



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun


i bet your not going to use the correct taxonomic names are you? becasue if you do that then people might notice ceolcanth isnt a species of fish its an umbrella term for an entire order that covered over 30 species and they are all exitinct except two, and those two arnt found in the older fossil record they are relative newbies .. so while the 2 survivors of the order celocanth are living fossils, its not actually them that are the living fossils but thier order which was thought to be totally extinct



Yeah and like I thougth you would do, you leave out the fact that the one recently discovered was also thought to be extinct. It has changed in 65 million years as much as i change getting a sun tan in summer.

Proof for macevo?

Nope



and yes they have changed since 65 million years ago, what others do you want to pull out? horse shoe crabs? they have changed .... anymore or?


Again sun tan whoopie



pick a time scale on shark evolution and lets go play compare the anatomy ok?


Not really interested in splitting hairs. Ya never know when they will turn into feathers on a dinosaur.

or scales to feathers lol

Like the feathered aligator ha ha



or that you are verbatum repeating the standard dodgy creationist arguments?


and what do you think I'd call yours? Original?

Nope



(maybe thats why science dot use artist impressions in thier research or peer reviewed papers ....


I only wish they wouldn't put them in ANYTHING that isn't true let alone what people who KNOW they are not true in a peer review would

[edit on 11-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

yeah whatever noobfun.. I told you, I quit reading your posts so I hope you don't go to too much trouble splitting hairs about my dishonesty and all that other "stuff"
not reading them but reading it enough to understand what it says ....


Oh and by the way,, if you really think I am ad-hom'ing you all over the place,, don't be shy, alert a mod or quit making the accusations.[/qu
te] You do realize while personal insults may fall under Ad-homonyms, not all ad-homonyms are personal insults however

and while personal insults are frowned on by mods ad-homonyms are not (well they are but not punishably so)

so while you still use ad-homonyms rather then address points of debate i can continue to point this out and since they do not cross from general ad-homonyms to personally insulting ad-homonyms the need to alert the mod simply does not exist


I don't think I have been anything less than rational in this entire thread.
No ones accusing you of being irrational ...

Ill tell ya why I say this, is because you are begining to make this thread look like it is a thread about me. Your just spreading the most absurdity at the moment, try not to flatter your self too much when you move along I am sure someone else will step up and you will be vanquished to passed pages of the thread


inspite of your incessant accusation of my intentional dishonesty


shall i go find the older examples i gave? Removing all context from a statement knowing full the meaning is then altered significantly, then presenting that statement as correct contextual and intact can be called nothing else but dishonest and intentional


Having said that, either alert them of my alleged personal attacks,

or I will, it's up to you
You have done nothing to infringe on the rules of posting at ATS so there are no grounds for me alerting the mods, dishonesty is a matter of personal integrity not of external moderation

[edit on 11/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Yeah and like I thougth you would do, you leave out the fact that the one recently discovered was also thought to be extinct. It has changed in 65 million years as much as i change getting a sun tan in summer.
and which on is this? please feel free to pass on more information, lets not lolygag around with none specific generalizations and pretend it's a real argument of evidence

which species is this? Lets take a look at it beyond the pictures that look similar shall we



Again sun tan whoopie
so ummmm that is your rebuttal to living fossils are not really living fossil, that are not identical to how they were million of years ago? its less splitting hairs then not willing to commit to anything for fear of being proven further wrong



Not really interested in splitting hairs. Ya never know when they will turn into feathers on a dinosaur.

or scales to feathers lol
yes yes lets laugh at what a silly idea this is ... ohhh wait didn't they do experiments with this showing how scales on birds are atavistic in nature

and by turning the same gene that makes scales back on so it run for the same period as on the rest of the body the scales developed into feathers....

oops


Like the feathered aligator ha ha
is that the crocoducks cousin?



and what do you think I'd call yours? Original?

Nope
original no, accurate yes, honest yes,

but they do not need to be original because creationist argument never move on they are still pulling out the 200 year old paisley argument about the human eye, which is a kind of poor argument as the eyes badly built, an octopus eye is a better example its wired the right way around



I only wish they would not put them in ANYTHING that isn't true let alone what people who KNOW they are not true in a peer review would
sorry are you stating that they do put them in peer review? No photo only pretty pictures are of no use to paleontologist and anthropologist

and guess what artist impressions made with the scientists available to confirm they are on the right track with it are not a bad thing, most people would not recognize one pile of bones from another so an accurate artist impression made with the scientists help for accuracy work these give people a glimpse of what has been found so they might pay enough attention the pile of bones its self become interesting

for Nebraska man a newspaper paying an artist who has no knowledge of the subject and no access to communication with scientists who makes a scenario and the appearance of a possible species of homo up simply from imagination alone which the newspaper then prints without having it checked for accuracy is a bad thing

but that is nothing to do with science, which is why the scientist who believed he had identified a new hominid immediately wrote in on seeing such an image printed and so did many others

just the microraptor and national geo when popular press gets ahead of themselves and do stupid things science corrects them, but anti-evolutionist rather then say what actually happened then say ahh science was fooled by it all it faked it all it believed this and this

when what it is really doing is describing what the popular press did adding some imagination and pretending it was the scientific community at large that had anything to do with it

[edit on 11/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 11/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
Sharks are perfect for what they do and do not need to evolve. Humans still evolve. In fact right now they are finding people Immune to AIDS. What do thay have in common? Their ancestors were immune to the Black Plague. Humans today are literally giants compared to those 2,000 years ago. Goliath? Could have been 6foot tall. Back then that would be a giant. Today you have to top 7 foot before people notices your height.


Your latter comment about humans does not prove humans evolving into a new species though does it, just adapting the existing species ever so slightly



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
and while personal insults are frowned on by mods ad-homonyms are not (well they are but not punishably so)


Oh Rly? have you not read springers new thread about ZERO tolerance for this kind of thing? Ad-homs are ad-homs because they are personal insults and false allegations and / or ad-homs are the discretion of a MOD and Ill just bet ya YOU are flirting with pissing one or two of THEM off now too. But you go ahead Noobfun, I like to give people enough rope to hang themselves so don't let me get in your way. You go right on making them about me and we'll see what happens



so while you still use ad-homonyms rather then address points of debate i can continue to point this out and since they do not cross from general ad-homonyms to personally insulting ad-homonyms the need to alert the mod simply does not exist


I have made more posts than most in this thread and not s single one has told me or anyother MOD a thing about ad-homs. in Fact the entire subject of dishonesty and ad-homs was and is being insisted upon by your opening up on ME using old ad-homs you alleged were ad-homs back THEN and no one said anyting. The closest I have come to anything remotley conceivable to an ad-hom happens to be the longest post I think I have ever made and it was in response to who?

YOU THAT'S WHO!

The idea that you can't seem to let a single sentence of mine go without your personal critique for what YOU may think is a logical fallacy of any kind is one thing or what you think is a mis-quote when you represent the central message of that quote may need some elaboration by you explaining intent but it gets off topic, and again, Ill remind you the topic is not about me.


EXAMPLE of this baiting is seen below when I said:

I don't think I have been anything less than rational in this entire thread.


You just HAD to say I was saying you were accusing me of being irrational

No ones accusing you of being irrational ...


This is why I said it like I did, meaning I as in ME! That I don't think I have been anything less than rational. If I meant you were saying I was being irrational, trust me I don't have any problem making accusations about specific problems I have with anyone BY NAME.

Additional mis-understandings are seen below when I said:

Ill tell ya why I say this, is because you are begining to make this thread look like it is a thread about me.

I think I made my point quite clear here and is where I will insist that you stop making this thread about me. What did you say!



Your just spreading the most absurdity at the moment, try not to flatter your self too much when you move along I am sure someone else will step up and you will be vanquished to passed pages of the thread


Flatter myself? I will be "Vanquished" what is this to you?

A game? Did you not understand the point I AM MAKING????????

Of course you didn't because I have gotten this far in the thread and what are we talking about? So at this juncture I will have to alert them I have given you fair warning perhaps a warning from them will get this back on topic and NO this is not an insult I am making about you noobfun as I have been more restrained in my posts with you than I have ever been with anyone who takes apart posts line by line even lines I have made needing no further commentary you have felt the need to criticize when it is obviously of no concern of yours or anyone else but you just couldn't resist having to make it about some dishonest intent of mine.

EXAMPLE when I said:


inspite of your incessant accusation of my intentional dishonesty


Then rather than just get get the point, you bait me with a challenge of digging up old posts?? are you TRYING to start something here??

Is what I am asking you to consider not sinking in????????

NO! because you answer me by saying the following!


shall i go find the older examples i gave?


I throw my hands in the air and say BE MY GUEST. You dig up more of my old posts to re-hash them and if you're lucky you may even get me into some trouble again because now that is what I think this whole thing is about, I know it sure wasn't the OP's intention to be a thread about ME or my old posts that are thought to be wrong or ad-homs by someone named noobfun.

You do that go dig em all up.

As for me, .



You have done nothing to infringe on the rules of posting at ATS so there are no grounds for me alerting the mods, dishonesty is a matter of personal integrity not of external moderation


I'm afraid dis-honesty being left to your interpretation means a little more to me than it might to you or anyone else but it isn't just that, it is the idea I get that you have been trolling me, that you are somehow still upset with me from past threads you insist you have "ripped me and my posts apart" yet I have no intention of going back there nor do I know why you insist on bringign them here to this thread. My point was and continues to be a simple one and one I must insist you not make this thread. This thread is not about me and it isn't about US but I have said that now three times. I have tried to be nice and it seems I get accused for being dishonest no matter what I do.

You complained about being on my ignore list and I see when you find out you are again you seem to think that means I am afraid to engage in further debate with you.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is, talking about ME all the time is not my idea of fun, noobfun and you won't take a hint or no for an answer so have a nice life my friend

I have no choice anymore






[edit on 11-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Matthew Collins works for the Fossil Fuels and Environmental Geochemistry Newcastle Research Group.
No he doesn't



He is someone who has been caught in the middle of this on going battle between the Atheists wannabe scientists and the delusion that they have all the answers to science and the philosphical theist who asks questions they will never be able to answer. The funding for his reasearch is what gets often argued about but Matthew defends his research this way:


wait he defends his research and gain access to his funding by using a webpage made by in 2002 by Sean D. Pitman M.D. and badly updated every couple of years(it still shows him at Newcastle even after he left)?

ummm what? sorry Matthew Collins has been at York university since 2003, he does not nor has had to defend his work except for the typical peer review process, scientists asking realistic questions to check how accurate he was in finding osteocalcin which he turned out to be very accurate which is why his work passed peer review

his work is not controversial www.york.ac.uk...

in fact why would the evil all knowing atheist attack him if his work involves ways to improve finding, collecting and analyzing proteins and protein fragment from fossilized remains?


Collins's group has also used soft-ionization mass spectrometry to detect proteins in ancient fossils, leading to the first successful sequencing of proteins from Neanderthals.


umm wait that was a rather important study for anthropology and evolution of hominids so why is he stuck in the middle of something that you have failed to prove exists other then by quoting a dodgy webite that you didn't check before copy/pasting?

so if this imaginary evil achiest evolutionist empire exists he is um ... working for us so wouldn't be stuck in the middle of anything

and btw you putting a link to the university he used to work at at the end of an article expert you copy/pasted doesn't qualify that link as a source link

so he hasn't been stuck in the middle of anything doesn't defends his research by quoting something he mentioned in a magazine 17 years ago and was quoted by an article 7 years ago

so the 'this is how he defend his research' spin, did you copy paste that or just make it up?

and you question why your integrity and honesty comes into question so much, sorry the lil persecuted routine only works if you don't blatantly misrepresent or out right lie about things constantly


This was one of the reasons they had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection.
what sorry? now this is an interesting none sequitur

so because something was proven not to have changed they changed TOE to say everything changes which refutes tier own findings which then refutes random mutation .....

and as random mutation was known of prior to 92 they must have been psychic and changed it before the testing happened ......

..... this isn't making sense its cause and effect with time travel or precog psychic powers

they found a protein fragment and injected a bunny to see if it reacted similar to the reptilian version of said protein and it did

we've found several other protein in fossils now as well, because when the DNA breaks down into protein some of those proteins take a very long time to break down completely so pulling partial proteins from fossils isn't all that extraordinary, so not really a problem for evolution and no need to change TOE using our psychic powers to see what is coming in the future


This is how evolutionists have themselves, kept Science back in the stone age in their own unique sort of way.


ummm you haven't said how yet? other then using psychic powers to change thing so future test results might at first appear to conflict

and how does TOE keep the computer and technology sciences in the stone age? how about the medical research? how about bioengineering(which it has helped speed up) how about pharmacology (which it is heaping improve as well) how does a biology theory slow down our ability to build and use radio telescopes and send probes to mars?

so how does a scientific theory hold back all of science when it has done so much to progress its area of science?


This is why our country continues to fall further and further behind in Science because of this so called self proclaimed science of evolution.
or do you think it might be the number of people rejecting real science for pseudo science and trying to pass it on to anyone who will listen or they can make money from?

could it be science being restrained by religion like it was under the Bush government in many fields?

could it be that people like your self try to equate evolution as atheism and as evolution is science then it portrays science as atheism a well and so may put off many religious people who if they hadn't been beaten to death with the false dichotomy your so often wheeling out may have studied science to a high degree and would have closed that ground that being lost to other countries?


While they go on usually as quasi athiest's / science wannabe's who think creationists and ID'ers alike would dumb down Science if it were allowed to share in there hallowed ground in public schools.

do the ground work get valid results and actually prove what your saying is correct and guess what, as if by magic your work will be peer reviewed and published and once its peer reviewed it become science and able to be taught in science class

don't do the work just whine about how its so unfair and try and use cheap tricks and politics to skip all the hard work and its no wonder it not getting anywhere


Yet it is the evolutionist's bias for anything outside the small box of of their atheistic worldview
yay once again the same false dichotomy evolution = atheism so its that or god

sorry over 80% of the worlds Christians are theistic evolutionists, and as 80% of the worlds Christians vastly outnumber even 100% of all people without faith then most evolutionists are theists, with Christians Bing the largest section of all faiths/no faiths

and as the box of science goes, can it be tested or observed? yes ok lets do that , or no ...that is a bit pointless then

the box is pretty dam huge


that impedes objective and honest discourse or looking outside of the box.
honest discourse is welcome, proclaiming everything must be wrong unless its in my book of choice isn't honest discourse

saying well that is not what i want to believe so you must be wrong isn't honest discourse

if your going to make claims then bring evidence and well have some honest discourse, saying you want it your way because you don't like the way the evidence leads is attempting to drag science into a smaller box, not one where what i real and testable rules but one where an old book rules no matter how right or wrong what it say is


Like noobfun's posts so chock full of arguably the most desperate attempts to find any reason to call me dishonest,
find? it like playing pin the tail on the donkey but the donkeys the size of New York
i don't need to find its attempting to avoid that become the problem


They enjoy it, and we just shake our heads in pity for them as we whince in embarrassment for how they would feel if they only knew what it looked like to anyone reading it with half a wit and an average I.Q.
sorry you want me to dumb it down a little for you? and don't call your self a half wit seriously all you need is to stop hanging around AIG and go read some real books


What is Evolution?
Since there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes, we must begin by making it clear that the only evolutionary process we are talking about is the controversial one taught in American public schools.
sorry it the same one taught everywhere else not really all that controversial but lets red herring away from this statement before saying anything of value that can be questioned


While noobfun claims I accuse him of miss spelled words as the reason I have put him on ignore,
misspelled words an understanding of science, ability to read and link scientific literature, generally pointing out dishonesty and the many logical fallacies used, ability to source your copy/pastes that you invariably don't add a link to ... theres a whole host of reasons but the last time you put me on ignore the best arguments you were making went along the lines of your spelling i rubbish therefore your an idiot and know nothing so I'm not reading anything you write its to hard to understand through the errors


it is his suggestions that I present proof of anything when I am not the one presenting a claim for the TOE.
your claiming it has been proven false, if it ha been proven false then that requires evidence and its this we wish to see

your making the claim so yes you should provide the evidence

and no it being proven false doesn't have anything to do with negative proof before you try that one




[edit on 11/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

You see, this is where Noobfun reaches far back to old posts where my admitting I believed in evolution, he, quite deliberatly I might add, takes this meaning completely out of context


when you quite clearly say 'i am an evolutionist' 'i believe evolution is right' then start making the same claims as creationist and do the whole evolution=atheism and the evolution or god false dichotomy then state quite clearly evolution is a 100 made up pile of lies... how is it I'm taking it out of context?

ill skip the rest of the poor persecuted me and the evil evolutionist atheism conspiracy junk and head straight for the juice nonsense


Get engaged, but don't expect me to do all the work as Noobfun and his groupies have demanded I do for them.
?

sorry what?

i spend hours and hours each week reading peer reviewed works, I've spent years studying ...but I'm demanding you do all the work because you say evolution has been proven flashed and we say wheres the evidence?


I asked three questions that have not been acknowledged,

you have what were they sorry?


I have proven that I not only knew what lemski's experiments were for and about,
you really haven't you posted the abstract and still what you wrote in your own words were nothing to do with what the experiment was aiming to achieve or what it even did achieve


my statement about the e-coli still being e-coli was again taken totally out of context in a question noob asks saying "what part of evolution said they would be anything else?"
not taken out of context at all it was a sensible question as we shall see


The part that says, given enough time and enough environmental pressures they will become another species.
they were

E-coli like the term coelacanth do not indicate 1 species it is an umbrella term covering many different taxa under the term e-coli, so the cvit+ is a new species but still E-coli in the same way humans area species but still mammals, avarians are still reptiles

most things are eukareots

if you miss use a label heigh enough you can hide anything you want, and new species doesn't mean completely different organism, if you think cvit+should have become a dog or a frog or a tree then you really should go back and learn what evolution actually states


Yet when we look at the fruit flys or the e-coli in that fast replicating world of mutating mircoscopy, we see they haven't changed a bit.
umm they have changed in some cases quite massively from where they began

you seem to think evolution says a fruit fly should become a dog or a llama, it should be like its parents but not quite identical, and it offspring should be like its parent but not identical


That their deciding to eat citrate was like many humans would devolve into if trapped in a mineshaft buried alive with their co-workers or those trapped in antarctica or the himalaya's after a plane crash.
actually its the equivalent of humans learning to eat with absolutely no atmosphere and still carry on regardless

Most humans in these situations starve to death, and then some, do like the bacteria did, who couldn't stomach the idea of eating citrate. While most of us would rather die than do what I am about to suggest, SOME humans have become cannibalistic eating the only thing available they could possibly survive on to stay alive. ummmm what? the bacteria learnt to eat citrate in oxygenated conditions which meant a major overhaul of their digestive system, its the equivalent of your kids kids kids 30,000 generation down the line growing 7 stomachs to enable them to eat grass and digest it like cows do

cannibalism? really this is great stuff



myxo.css.msu.edu...
heres the paper they wrote maybe you cant point out the cannibalism for me I've read it numerous times and cant find it anywhere


Like the science it has hijacked since, we see the wrong questions being answered and by the wrong people. If you uare like most of us, anyone thinking noobfun makes sense is someone he doesn't have to convince. It ain't hard selling drugs to an addict and it ain't hard getting an atheist to agree with evolution much less anybody who is a buddy of noobfun.
awww poor lil ole you feeling lonely?

well people tend to agree with me because I'm usually a lot less wrong then the people on your side of the fence, but hey while your over there feeling so sorry for your self maybe you should skip back to where i discredit and evolutionists arguments too ... but dear god no never could admit that could you now


in 2008 the Mars missions did not find any hint of past or present life on Mars.
i know but hey theres no real evidence to say there would be life on mars

the new methane clouds are interesting though, not defiantly signs of life but passably, but hey evolution doesn't have much to say about mars simple because we don't know if theres life up there to evolve


Nobody discovered a new human ancestor
nope we've already got more then we currently know what to do with, but more interestingly chimp teeth were found or teeth very very similar to chimps indicating they may not have lived solely in dense jungle during or after the divergence so it may be possible to increase our findings within their fossil record as jungles are probably the worst environment for fossil preservation

and well we got lots more fossils species found, snakes with legs the largest know species of snake ever, new turtle transitional etc etc etc

but hey lets look at the accomplishments of ID and cretinism in 2008 ...Behe sold some more none peer reviewed for the scientific illiterate public books, Ken ham made lots more money and peanut butter jar man still didn't find any new species in his jar of peanut butter



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reserved for the rest of above reply when i get time later



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reserved for the rest of above reply when i get time later



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
My question is that if there isn't evolution, then no one can claim genetics. Why I inherited my momthers bad knees. Why someone's child looks like dad but has moms' ears.

If evolution and changing biology didn't exist, then there would be no way to tell who was related to who, it would be completely random.

We would have the same species we started out with. And I don't even know what we would look like without genetics, that changes our DNA ever so slightly every generation.

People wouldn't inherit diseases, and many other things without evolution, because evolution and genetics are the very same thing.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
My question is that if there isn't evolution, then no one can claim genetics. Why I inherited my momthers bad knees. Why someone's child looks like dad but has moms' ears.

If evolution and changing biology didn't exist, then there would be no way to tell who was related to who, it would be completely random.

We would have the same species we started out with. And I don't even know what we would look like without genetics, that changes our DNA ever so slightly every generation.

People wouldn't inherit diseases, and many other things without evolution, because evolution and genetics are the very same thing.



why is this so hard to understand Ill never know.

do NOT mistake noobfun saying "sorry over 80% of the worlds Christians are theistic evolutionists, and as 80% of the worlds Christians vastly outnumber even 100% of all people without faith then most evolutionists are theists, with Christians Bing the largest section of all faiths/no faiths - noobfun"

Most christians he has claimed do not know much about evolution in the first place. I don't know that because most don't get much involved in areas where they are "ripped" on like I am by someone who is so obviously obsessed with me he has made it his lifes mission to make entire pages about each sentence I make in a post missing the point I was making about NOT ASKING the right questions. NOT whether he is STILL at work or whether the link I got was not the one to his website informing us that he is retired now or what ever noob is trying to make such a moutain out of a mole hill on. The point is Christians by and large believe in evolution but that DOES NOT mean they are "evolutionists"




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join