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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 22
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Origin Of The Species


Over and over you keep using this phrase :
"Origin Of The Species"

Of course, you are WRONG there too - the actual title is :
"The Origin of Species".

But creationist web sites always use the INCORRECT "Origin Of The Species", just like you do - because you are copying from creationists.

But you never actually LOOKED at Darwin's book, have you, B.A.C. ?
If you ever had even LOOKED at the book, you would get the title right.

More evidence that you never check anything, you just repeat false claims from creationists.


Kapyong




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 


You are absolutely correct. This thread has nothing to do with creationism. It has to do with a theory (with many unknowns) being touted as fact.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


So what is your hang up with evolution? The theory works, humans just don't live long enough to see the true beauty in it.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Origin Of The Species


Over and over you keep using this phrase :
"Origin Of The Species"

Of course, you are WRONG there too - the actual title is :
"The Origin of Species".

But creationist web sites always use the INCORRECT "Origin Of The Species", just like you do - because you are copying from creationists.

But you never actually LOOKED at Darwin's book, have you, B.A.C. ?
If you ever had even LOOKED at the book, you would get the title right.

More evidence that you never check anything, you just repeat false claims from creationists.


Kapyong



Once again, you've proven yourself wrong. I've quoted from the book on this same thread!

Not to mention a copy is sitting on my desk right beside me.

You can notice the "The" missing from a books title, but not all the unknowns with evolution?

Good Job.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

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


So what is your hang up with evolution? The theory works, humans just don't live long enough to see the true beauty in it.


It has to do with a theory (with many unknowns) being touted as fact. Have you read this thread? My position is very clear if you have.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   


It has to do with a theory (with many unknowns) being touted as fact. Have you read this thread? My position is very clear if you have.


Creation is touted as fact by many as well. Evolution is a great theory and it bothers me to see so many toss it out as 'only a theory'.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by jrod]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
List of transitional fossils:

here ya go

There are approximately 60 examples listed so there ya go.
Of course all of this information is a vast conspiracy.....

and the obligatory edit


[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


just because the theory might appear to work does not mean it is right. It was formed by "ground and consequence".

If i walk into a room and there is a vase tipped on the floor, a table above it and a cat on the table. i might hypothesis that the cat knocked the vase off the table, if there is no one else in the room.

I could collect hair samples, dust for paw prints, angle the trajectory that the vase fell, call upon scientific peers to conclude my findings and review them, "the works". But even if my theory is in line with the data observed/obtained, this does not mean it is what happened.

In actuality a small earthquake tremor scared the cat onto the table and the tremor knocked the vase to the floor; not the cat. All evidence previously gathered turned out to be circumstantial and the only reason it seemed to make sense was because i imposed my own imagination on the data instead of admitting the obvious . . .

The only thing that could have ever been known for sure, is that when i walked into the room, there was a vase on the floor and a cat on a table.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
List of transitional fossils:

here ya go

Of course all of this information is a vast conspiracy.....


First read what I said concerning Transitional Fossils, then try to refute what I said.

Evolutionists on this thread are claiming there are THOUSANDS of TF's.

I asked them to name 51 for me.

No there are not 60 on that page, did you bother counting?

Can you name 51?

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
How about 42? After all that's the meaning of life


2nd line....



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
How about 42? After all that's the meaning of life


2nd line....


Thanks for helping me prove my point


I'm really starting to like you, despite what I said earlier.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I've never said it is perfect, like Copernicus's works had minor flaws but overall the picture was right, I see evolution as the same way. While conclusive proof may take thousands of years from humans to accept, I think the model of natural selection, random mutations, and niches are nearly impossible to argue against.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by jrod]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


well i'm arguing against them, because they're illogical. The vase-table-cat example i just presented proves that the way the scientific field has gone about making it's conclusions is not only foolish, but unscientific.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I don't dislike you either B.A.C...never did. But above I posted a link to transitional fossils which fill your "criteria" should you choose to peruse it.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jrod
 


just because the theory might appear to work does not mean it is right. It was formed by "ground and consequence".

If i walk into a room and there is a vase tipped on the floor, a table above it and a cat on the table. i might hypothesis that the cat knocked the vase off the table, if there is no one else in the room.

I could collect hair samples, dust for paw prints, angle the trajectory that the vase fell, call upon scientific peers to conclude my findings and review them, "the works". But even if my theory is in line with the data observed/obtained, this does not mean it is what happened.

In actuality a small earthquake tremor scared the cat onto the table and the tremor knocked the vase to the floor; not the cat. All evidence previously gathered turned out to be circumstantial and the only reason it seemed to make sense was because i imposed my own imagination on the data instead of admitting the obvious . . .

The only thing that could have ever been known for sure, is that when i walked into the room, there was a vase on the floor and a cat on a table.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by JPhish]


I gave you a star for this post. Nice analogy.

.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
I don't dislike you either B.A.C...never did. But above I posted a link to transitional fossils which fill your "criteria" should you choose to peruse it.


It doesn't fill my criteria, I asked for 51. If there are thousands that shouldn't be hard.

I'm not saying you claimed there were thousands. If you don't claim there are thousands, then we are in agreement.

From that page:


An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms.


Of course I want True Transitionals.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I never claimed any number. I don't think that's relevant. Nor do I think your arbitrary number of 51 is either. The fact is that they exist.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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


I never claimed any number. I don't think that's relevant. Nor do I think your arbitrary number of 51 is either. The fact is that they exist.


I've never disputed that what are called Transitional Fossils exist.

I'm only disputing misinformation that some are trying to use to better their argument. ie; There are thousands of TF's

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
well evolution has fossils so we win


creationism is also a theory but with much less proof



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I don't like 42 nor 51 because neither are prime.

The cat with the vase theory is just a distraction and does not make the case, any good investigator/scientist would have came up with different theories of how it happened.

As for the origin of life on Earth we have:
1. Evolution
2. micro evolution with divine intervention
3. micro E with ET intervention
4. ETs seeding the planet and evolution doing the rest
5. Creationism
____a. Genesis
____b-z. other culture's creation stories

I am sure there are many more.

Evolution has all the evidence and is reasonable, so I support it.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by jrod]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join