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.
its a strawman created by quote mines and used as an ad-homonim
Originally posted by Aermacchi
Straw man? Umm read my post again and see the two quotes by noob??
You just automatically assume A STRAW MAN.
so this i what you posted
athiests say there isnt a NEED for a god,
not that there is no God, - Noobfun
and this is the actual comment in context
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
i love evolution darwin rocks, and i am dumb - Aermachi
you do like running away dont you
This is going nowhere
bye
"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...
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."
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.
Originally posted by noobfun
and still no ad-homonims used, im getting better
how about a picture to hammer home the point
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
so this i what you posted
athiests say there isnt a NEED for a god,
not that there is no God, - Noobfun
and this is the actual comment in context
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
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.
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
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
When you can stop contradicting yourself
what i subscribe to makes no difference both are valid statements
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
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
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
When you can stop contradicting yourself
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
what i subscribe to makes no difference both are valid statements
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
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,
ahh here come the ceolcanth argument
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!
what that you dont understand the differance between a taxonomic order and a species?
But they seem to let that slide right over their heads
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
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?
or that you are verbatum repeating the standard dodgy creationist arguments?
(maybe thats why science dot use artist impressions in thier research or peer reviewed papers ....
not reading them but reading it enough to understand what it says ....
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"
te] You do realize while personal insults may fall under Ad-homonyms, not all ad-homonyms are personal insults however
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
No ones accusing you of being irrational ...
I don't think I have been anything less than rational in this entire thread.
inspite of your incessant accusation of my intentional dishonesty
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
Having said that, either alert them of my alleged personal attacks,
or I will, it's up to you
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
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.
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
Again sun tan whoopie
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
Not really interested in splitting hairs. Ya never know when they will turn into feathers on a dinosaur.
or scales to feathers lol
is that the crocoducks cousin?
Like the feathered aligator ha ha
original no, accurate yes, honest yes,
and what do you think I'd call yours? Original?
Nope
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
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
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.
Originally posted by noobfun
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 ...
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?
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
No he doesn't
Originally posted by Aermacchi
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:
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.
what sorry? now this is an interesting none sequitur
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.
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?
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.
yay once again the same false dichotomy evolution = atheism so its that or god
Yet it is the evolutionist's bias for anything outside the small box of of their atheistic worldview
honest discourse is welcome, proclaiming everything must be wrong unless its in my book of choice isn't honest discourse
that impedes objective and honest discourse or looking outside of the box.
find? it like playing pin the tail on the donkey but the donkeys the size of New York
Like noobfun's posts so chock full of arguably the most desperate attempts to find any reason to call me dishonest,
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
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 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
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.
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
While noobfun claims I accuse him of miss spelled words as the reason I have put him on ignore,
your claiming it has been proven false, if it ha been proven false then that requires evidence and its this we wish to see
it is his suggestions that I present proof of anything when I am not the one presenting a claim for the TOE.
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
?
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,
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
I have proven that I not only knew what lemski's experiments were for and about,
not taken out of context at all it was a sensible question as we shall see
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?"
they were
The part that says, given enough time and enough environmental pressures they will become another species.
umm they have changed in some cases quite massively from where they began
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.
actually its the equivalent of humans learning to eat with absolutely no atmosphere and still carry on regardless
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.
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
myxo.css.msu.edu...
awww poor lil ole you feeling lonely?
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.
i know but hey theres no real evidence to say there would be life on mars
in 2008 the Mars missions did not find any hint of past or present life on Mars.
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
Nobody discovered a new human ancestor
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.