Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Technological advancement is the evidence of evolution.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bignick
 


Absolutely true bignick. It would be horrible to think that humans were created in the sad state that they are today without the possiblity of bettering themselves.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


wikipedia link:


evolution theory and fact: wikipedia link

scroll down to the comparison of gravity and evolution. since that's the example you made earlier


[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


So you did edit it to fit your argument. If you are going to debate, at least be honest.

Fruit Flies DNA "changing" is not proof of evolution, it is only proof that "something", chemicals, pollution, etc, has altered their DNA.

When a Fruit Fly's wings turn into flippers that's evolution. When a Fruit Fly loses it's wings and evolves to live on land, that's evolution.

If you wish to make a viable argument, don't alter the text from links you provide, it only discredits you.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Again another straw man. Please point out where I edited? The problem with believers in creation is that they constantly cut and paste from evidence that supports evolution and never provide the same evidence supporting thier own ideas.

Show me where I edited please. That's a direct copy and paste from wikipedia my friend.

I can see by your avatar that you just joined the site. If you would bother to browse a little you'll find that my arguments on this subject are logical and I never modify the information to suit my needs. Find one person here who will back you up on my credibility and you may have a point.

Face it...this thread will devolve into quoting the "infallible" word of the bible. As that will be the last thing you'll have to stand on. There are plenty of pro christian threads here on ATS. Go find some that support your beliefs. You'll be a lot happier.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bignick
Technological advancement is the evidence of evolution.


On the contrary.

We've been here millions of years (according to evolution), but scientists find no technological advancements until the last thousands of years?

Doesn't make sense.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Again another straw man. Please point out where I edited? The problem with believers in creation is that they constantly cut and paste from evidence that supports evolution and never provide the same evidence supporting thier own ideas.

Show me where I edited please. That's a direct copy and paste from wikipedia my friend.


No it isn't, them words together do not appear on the link you provided.

When did I state that I'm a creationist?

I don't have to be of any school of thought to disagree with a theory, stay on track, this isn't a debate about religious beliefs, it's a debate about a theory.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Oh but you're mistaken my friend. Do I need to post a screenshot?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Again another straw man. Please point out where I edited? The problem with believers in creation is that they constantly cut and paste from evidence that supports evolution and never provide the same evidence supporting thier own ideas.

Show me where I edited please. That's a direct copy and paste from wikipedia my friend.

I can see by your avatar that you just joined the site. If you would bother to browse a little you'll find that my arguments on this subject are logical and I never modify the information to suit my needs. Find one person here who will back you up on my credibility and you may have a point.

Face it...this thread will devolve into quoting the "infallible" word of the bible. As that will be the last thing you'll have to stand on. There are plenty of pro christian threads here on ATS. Go find some that support your beliefs. You'll be a lot happier.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


I'm not the one bringing this thread to that state, you are. I haven't had to quote the Bible to prove my point. Why do YOU have to bring the Bible into it?

My beliefs about evolution? Or my beliefs in God? Which are you speaking about?

The thread is about evolution, why do you keep bringing God up?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You want the screenshot or not?

I call 'em like I see 'em B.A.C. Tell my I'm wrong and I'll believe you. It's called an end run. I can see it coming a mile away




[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You want the screenshot or not?

I call 'em like I see 'em B.A.C. Tell my I'm wrong and I'll believe you.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


I don't need a screenshot.

Tell you you're wrong about what? I already stated I don't have to use the Bible to refute evolution. You keep bringing it up, not me.

You have been here a whole month longer? Well then I'm sorry for arguing with a veteran such as yourself



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Tell me I'm wrong about you and what this thread will devolve into. And trust me...I've been on this site much longer than a month. But my reason for pointing out your start date is simple. You've not bothered to check out any other threads on the same topic.

And I still have that screenshot waiting. But feel free to retract your accusation concerning my honesty. I'll be happy to accept it.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


I also like the way you are going back in your posts and editing them. That exudes credibility. LOL



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ahhh so the add-homs begin. Let 'em fly


I edit for spelling mistakes. But I edited this one so you could have more to work with

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Tell me I'm wrong about you and what this thread will devolve into. And trust me...I've been on this site much longer than a month. But my reason for pointing out your start date is simple. You've not bothered to check out any other threads on the same topic.

And I still have that screenshot waiting. But feel free to retract your accusation concerning my honesty. I'll be happy to accept it.


No my accusation stands. You went back and edited the post I was talking about, why did you do that?

I'll stay on topic if you do. I have no idea the way this thread will end up. As for my part in it, like I said, I'm on topic.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ahhh so the add-homs begin. Let 'em fly


I edit for spelling mistakes. But I edited this one so you could have more to work with

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


But you said it was a direct paste from wiki, there were no spelling mistakes.

Again your credibility suffers.

Let's stay on topic, unless you are trying to devolve this thread?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Good try but no dice. You accused me of editing the wikipedia information. Like I stated above my edits are to correct spelling mistakes that I MAKE with my own replies.

The hole gets deeper and deeper.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Good try but no dice. You accused me of editing the wikipedia information. Like I stated above my edits are to correct spelling mistakes that I MAKE with my own replies.

The hole gets deeper and deeper.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


For you, yes.

Back on topic now.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I'm still waiting on you to point out where the wikipedia information was edited. As you accused. Should be simple enough to point out shouldn't it?



No it isn't, them words together do not appear on the link you provided.






[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I'm still waiting on you to point out where the wikipedia information was edited. As you accused. Should be simple enough to point out shouldn't it?



No it isn't, them words together do not appear on the link you provided.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


How can I point it out when you went back and EDITED the information. You claimed it was a DIRECT paste from wiki, yet you say there were spelling mistakes? No, there wasn't ONE spelling mistake on that quote. Also, you didn't edit the quote, you completely replaced it.

On topic now, or is this about something else?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 





You'll notice "them" words is all together.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]





new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join