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: 46
65
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 



I have specific questions yet to be answered, so I am not content to swallow an ever evolving and complex theory just because at the moment we don't know any better.


Again you miss the point, it's like you purposely don't want to listen. The theory of evolution will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be 100% completely proven. We will never find the fossils of every single animal that ever lived. So it's impossible to find ever single bit of evidence to prove evolution completely. But, the evidence there is supporting evolution is enough to conclude as a fact.

en.wikipedia.org...


Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.


The overwhelming evidence of evolution.

Science does not admit to be anything more then tentative - it's a work in progress. Never completely resolved. And because of this underlying fact all science can do is form scientifc theories on the best amount evidence that we have at the time to make intelligent conclusions.


When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact


And so just because we can't find every little bit of evidence does not mean evolution is not a fact. Of course there are going to be questions yet to be answered because we will never have the complete answer.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by andre18]




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

I am able to grasp you high school debate. You think that this thread is some how ground breaking. The theory of evolution is a theory that is reverse engineered by making abservations FIRST and then coming up with a theory to explain that, not running test via a method formulated by hypothesis, observing the results and then formulating a conclusion, which is the scientific method. It is missing key componants IMHO.


Yes this is EXACTLY what they have done and I am so glad to see ATS has finally got some excellent writers for alternative ideas and challeges for that State Religion for Darwitts. I think they have pretty much got their rear ends handed to em on this thread. The typical criticism and ridicule the stuck up attitude that they are Science while everyone else is not. The fact is if one were to ever actually USE the scientific method in evolution, it wouldn't have that mountain of fraudulent hoaxes.

Evolution is dying under the weight of its own BS and better come up with a new hypothesis to fit to their theory soon or the whole Fact of evolution will be recited, read and picked out from the same aisle in the library where you will find other fine literature written by someone more deserving to be called Dr,. then Dawkins and

that would be a guy named Seuss.

Doctor Seuss



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


When people come along and say well you know science gets it wrong sometimes right, i just don't trust it or well what abut this religious idea - i just don't believe them it doesn't matter that these scientists are experts.

Folding your arms and saying that you're going to reject responsible peer review science for no other reason then the fact that it disagrees with your preconceptions, that is actually the hight of intellectual arrogance.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Again you miss the point, it's like you purposely don't want to listen.


Andre! get a clue! OR HELL EVOLVE ONE IF YOU HAVE TO, you darwits always think it is US who should listen, well we quit listening and while you think we have never heard all this "stuff" before, perhaps it is your denial of other peoples work in other areas of science.

You know PURE Science like Mathmatics then Genetics and Cosmology are leaving you and your old stale stuck up attitudes and your mis-matched merging of scientific terminology so that ANYTHING GOES making it easier to equivocate between so much now that if you really thought about it, evolution can STEAL ID theory and make it fit if they weren't so afraid of learning about it. You think another consensus of degreed scientists aren't in the making? A new breed of smarter less dogmatic more open minded minds of Science that are FED UP with the status quo and the zookeeper Dawkins and the phony Christian poser Miller. They will exploit the Darwits silly circular semantics the logic of legion, and leave them choking on the dust of their own regrets.


They are sick of having the very science vernacular destroyed just so Darwitts can advance their religion of Atheism behind the guise of science. They are sick of the condescending arrogance the terminally self righteous hubris and utter conceit of those in the circles of higher academia having to bow down to this mighty church of Darwinian Evolution. You complain that it will never be proven 100% when I still see public school text books using haekels bogus embryo's as part of that so called supporting evidence.




The theory of evolution will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be 100% completely proven.


Hell it isn't 2% proven, it isn't even a theory anymore it's a relic, a dogma for some old Darwittian Gothic Church where Monkeys sit a top where the gargoyles used to.



We will never find the fossils of every single animal that ever lived



That's not our fault.




So it's impossible to find ever single bit of evidence to prove evolution completely.


Again, it does provide motive for all the manufactured fakes so rife in this area of science but the fact is, just because you can't find all the fossils,,

is not our fault either. (Awe)





But, the evidence there is supporting evolution is enough to conclude as a fact.


Saying it's a fact ad-nauseum ad-infintum doesn't make it so Andre.
The REAL fact is, if evolution made any damn sense, YOU wouldn't be trying to prove it's a fact! The REAL Fact is,, even YOU know it is hard to believe much less call a fact.

Oh sure you wouldn't admit that but that doesn't stop you from coming here trying to prove evolution again like all the rest of the Darwits.




The overwhelming evidence of evolution.


WHERE! SHOW ME! SHOW ME ONE THING THAT ISN'T A BUNCH OF FEATHERS GLUED TO A LIZARD OR A MONKEYS JAWBONE SCREWED TO A HUMAN SKULL, or some skeleton of a man with rickets.




When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one


HUH?? Pffft more just so fables



so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly.


You're not botherd by doubt?? SPLENDID ! Because you better get used to it thier is a new Sheriff in town and he is the creator of the heavens and the earth and son,, THAT IS A FACT and like your Religion of evolution,, it is only a FACT to those who have faith in it. You say it doesn't bother you?/ hehe then why bother when truth needs no defense. Because it isn't true it is a well funded well guarded religion of the state.

You say they will act accordingly? Who will andre! YOU and your sophomore science club? What they gonna do? Build another piltdown pile of piss poor paleontology you and your scientific method can spend another half century before they finally figure out they been duped then wait another half century before they finally start removing that from our kids textbooks? You Call this Science when it has all the earmarks of a science circus act and the prestige of a used car lot



In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification.


Pffft give creationists 10 weeks in a level and open field of Science without all the barriers let them work with evolutionists and in 10 weeks they will crush your fable. The fact is they have had the ACLU and a host of illegal tactics from spying to black listing anyone who might even question your Bible of Darwit. Hell Darwit wasn't even the naturist on the Beagle, and he paid his own way. He wasn't even a Scientist but you hail him up there with Einstein! HA HA HA No wonder no one can take this stuff serious.

Evolution has been

Debunked



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Would you please stop calling evolution a religion? A religion and a scientific theory are NOT THE SAME THING!

The actual age of the earth with evidence! 4.5 BILIION YEARS.

Evidence of evolution: dating the fossil record

Examples of evolution contained within fossils


Evolution of vertebrate legs The possession of legs defines a group of vertebrate animals called tetrapods - as distinct from vertebrate animals whose appendages are fins, the fishes. In most fishes, the thin bony supports of the fins are arranged like the rays of a fan; hence these fishes are called 'ray-finned' fish. Trout, perch, and bass are examples of living ray-fins. Certain fishes are called 'lobe-finned,' because of the stout, bony supports in their appendages. Lobe-finned fish first appear in the fossil record in early Late Devonian time, about 377 mya. The bony supports of some lobe-finned fishes are organized much like the bones in the forelimbs and hind limbs of tetrapods: a single upper bone, two lower bones, and many little bones that are the precursors of wrist and ankle bones, hand and foot bones, and bones of the fingers and toes that are first known in Late Devonian amphibian-like animals from about 364 mya. These animals were the first tetrapods. Many similarities also exist in the skull bones and other parts of the skeleton between Devonian lobe-finned fishes and amphibian-like tetrapods. In fact, in certain fossils the resemblances are so close that the definition of which are fish and which are tetrapods is hotly debated. In 1998, a lobe-finned fish was described from Upper Devonian rocks from about 370 mya in central Pennsylvania (Daeschler and Shubin, 1998). This fish has bones in its forelimb arranged in a pattern nearly identical to that of some Late Devonian amphibian-like tetrapods. The pattern includes a single upper-arm bone (humerus), two forearm bones (radius and ulna), and many little bones connected by joints to the forearm bones in the positions of wrist and finger bones. However, the finger-like bones look like unjointed fin rays, rather than the truly jointed finger bones of tetrapods. Should the animal be called a fish or a tetrapod? It's hard to say. On the basis of the finger bones, it could be classified as a fish, whereas, on the basis of the large limb bones, the animal could be classified as a tetrapod. Remember that we humans created the classification scheme for life on Earth, and we choose where to draw the boundaries. When dealing with transitional forms of life this is not an easy task!



Evolution of birds Most paleontologists regard birds as the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs - as opposed to descendants of some other group of reptiles. Paleontologists and zoologists have long accepted that birds and reptiles are related. The two groups share many common traits including many skeletal features, the laying of shelled eggs, and the possession of scales, although in birds, scales are limited to the legs. Among modern birds, the embryos even have rudimentary fingers on their wings. In one modern bird, the South American hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin, the wings of the juvenile have large moveable claws on the first and second digits. The young bird uses these claws to grasp branches. The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx. One of the leading scholars of the bird-dinosaur relationship is John Ostrom of Yale University, who has summarized all the details of the skeletal similarities of Archaeopteryx with small, bipedal Jurassic dinosaurs such as Compsognathus. Compsognathus belongs to the group of dinosaurs that includes the well-known Velociraptor, of Jurassic Park fame, and Deinonychus, which Ostrom called the ultimate killing machine. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so similar to that of Compsognathus that some specimens of Archaeopteryx were at first incorrectly classified as Compsognathus. Ostrom regarded Archaeopteryx as being on the direct line of descent of birds from reptiles. New fossil specimens from Mongolia, China, Spain, Argentina, and Australia have added to our knowledge of the early history of birds, and many paleontologists now reckon that the turkey on our Thanksgiving tables is a descendant of the dinosaurs.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Evolution of mammals

The oldest reptiles having mammal-like features, the synapsids, occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian age formed about 305 mya. However, the first mammals do not appear in the fossil record until Late Triassic time, about 210 mya. Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record.... Structural evolution of particular functional systems has been well investigated, notably the feeding mechanism... and middle ear, and these studies have demonstrated the gradual nature of these major adaptive modifications." A widely used definition of mammals is based on the articulation or joining of the lower and upper jaws. In mammals, each half of the lower jaw is a single bone called the dentary; whereas in reptiles, each half of the lower jaw is made up of three bones. The dentary of mammals is joined with the squamosal bone of the skull. This condition evolved between Pennsylvanian and Late Triassic times. Evolution of this jaw articulation can be traced from primitive synapsids (pelycosaurs), to advanced synapsids (therapsids), to cynodonts, to mammals. In mammals, two of the extra lower jaw bones of synapsid reptiles (the quadrate and articular bones) became two of the middle-ear bones, the incus (anvil) and malleus (hammer). Thus, mammals acquired a hearing function as part of the small chain of bones that transmit air vibrations from the ear drum to the inner ear.



Evolution of whales

During the 1990s our understanding of whale evolution made a quantum jump. In 1997, Gingerich and Uhen noted that whales (cetaceans) "... have a fossil record that provides remarkably complete evidence of one of life's great evolutionary adaptive radiations: transformation of a land mammal ancestor into a diversity of descendant sea creatures." The trail of whale evolution begins in Paleocene time, about 60 mya, with a group of even-toed, hoofed, trotting, scavenging carnivorous mammals called mesonychians. The first whales (pakicetids) are known from lower Eocene rocks, that formed about 51 mya; the pakicetids are so similar to mesonychians that some were misidentified as belonging to that group. However, the teeth of pakicetids are more like those of whales from middle Eocene rocks, about 45 mya, than they are like the teeth of mesonychians. Pakicetids are found in nonmarine rocks and it is not clear how aquatic they were. In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water. From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Aerm....even YOU, having being so proud to have 'coined' a word....can't even be bothered to spell it correctly!!!

Your term....."Darwitts".....

Of course, by attempting to be clever, you merely have shown your ignorance.

We all make typos....I know that, everyone does.....

But, this comes down to YOUR strategy.....AND, if you wish to 'dazzle' the audience, then you'd better be at your best!!!!

I suggest a leisurely visit back to Page one.....so that you can, again, re-visit the tongue-in-cheek point of the OP.....



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Again you miss the point, it's like you purposely don't want to listen. The theory of evolution will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be 100% completely proven. We will never find the fossils of every single animal that ever lived. So it's impossible to find ever single bit of evidence to prove evolution completely. But, the evidence there is supporting evolution is enough to conclude as a fact.


This describes perfectly the two sides to this debate:

You have concluded a theory to be fact.

We haven't.

I'm a Creationist. Yet, I believe in Evolution. Do we see evolution all around us. I believe so. I believe that since we were put on a planet with a finite number of resources. God made us so we (us and the animals) could slightly evolve to deal with these changes. ie; climate change, global warming, loss of natural habitat, O Zone depletion, etc.

Now you know why I believe in Evolution, but I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. Do my views sound so outlandish?

I can't say Creationism or ID is a fact. NO WAY! Of course I can't. I believe it to be a fact. I could never tell someone it's a fact though. That would be forcing my belief on someone.

Remember, you can't tell me with Science what the Origin of Life is, my belief in ID sounds more reasonable on this subject than Sciences, sorry.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


B.A.C.

I know you were responding to the OP, 'Andre'....but your recent post is showing, to me, that you are so close to understanding!!!!!!

This is simple: You can accept your God. No need to change, or refute....it's just, there are certain scientific principles that are irrefutable....AND, those scientific principles CAN BE INCORPORATED into a God 'theism'.

Let me try another tack....

GOD created everything.

Therefore, GOD created science....it's part of 'everything', isn't it???

Imagine an 'all powerful' GOD who started everything, from the outside, via the 'Big Bang'.

This is a very practical view of GOD, you must agree??

Being Omniscient, this GOD can look in, from time to time, to see how things are going....but, HIS schedule probably doesn't coincide with yours........



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123
 


You trust NASA?
Check out this video from NASA:

www.youtube.com...



I don't believe a word they say.


Ya, ok, the video is a joke, but you get my point!!

[edit on 6/3/09 by John Matrix]


Frankly I'm not surprised you don't believe there was moon landings even though it's another thing that's been proven and can be proven again at any time

You obviously have no belief in the facts of science in general. The irony is that if science was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion on a COMPUTER.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by andre18
 


All of the same evidence that evolutionists use to support thier theory is also used to support the creation model and without causing one to make up more and more unreasonable explanations for all the holes in the evidence and in the evolution theory itself.

It all fits much better into the creation model. Creation is a fact, evolution is a faith. Evolution requires a lot more faith than believing in God does.



Simply saying it, doesn't make it so. Provide evidence to support your amusing statement

Oh wait, there is no evidence to support creationism



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by jfj123

Bold in quote mine for emphasis.
Just thought I'd post some info from a well respected source-NASA.


NASA?? Pffft!

C'mon you can't BE SERIOUS just do a google NASA's lies. They have ALMOST as many hoax's fraudulent ongoing schemes as Darwitts do desperately trying to prove evolution.


lemme guess.....you think NASA is covering up the moon landing????
Oh my god.
This is the mentality of the people we're having a discussion with.
It figures you refuse to look at scientific data as evidence

Just sad.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123
 


The sun might eventually begin to grow assuming our sun is the same as other suns which expand as they are dying out. But for the last 300 years or more it has been observed shrinking, not expanding. Also, check out my previous post with other facts and proofs for creation.


www.abovetopsecret.com...





Not according to what I posted.
Can you post any reliable scientific data to support your statement?
As example, from a solar observatory, NASA, etc..



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf

Would you please stop calling evolution a religion? A religion and a scientific theory are NOT THE SAME THING!


Who said anything about a scientific theory? I was talking about Darwits evolution. Gee I bet ID scientists would trade their feelings for yours any day with you Darwits always callin ID a religion when if anyone acts as zealous and as pious and as dogmatic as religion, it's Evolutionists.
The actual age of the earth with evidence! 4.5 BILIION YEARS.



Compsognathus belongs to the group of dinosaurs that includes the well-known Velociraptor, of Jurassic Park fame, and Deinonychus, which Ostrom called the ultimate killing machine. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so similar to that of Compsognathus that some specimens of Archaeopteryx were at first incorrectly classified as Compsognathus. Ostrom regarded Archaeopteryx as being on the direct line of descent of birds from reptiles.


GuFaW!!!! Lo and Behold! What does the Darwit have to show me but yet another decendent from a another feathered FRAUD!

HA HA HA HA I guess when you can't discover the mountan of evidence to support your Religion Science,,

You'll make one. Seriously, is THIS all Darwits know how to do is lie cheat and fabricate. They call this SCIENCE????


(Vines, Gail; "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx 'Fraud'," New Scientist, p. 3, 1985.)

Comment. A wonderful tempest seems to be brewing. Could Archaeopteryx be another Piltdown Man? To put the matter in proper context, we must remember that Archaeopteryx is in all the evolution books along side the family tree of the horse. It is an emotional issue. On the other hand, Fred Hoyle seems equally convinced that evolution is statistically impossible, and an Archaeopteryx fraud would fit well with his predispositions.


From Science Frontiers #39, MAY-JUN 1985. © 1985-2000 William R. Corliss



Flying Dinosaurs
Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud?
copyright Christopher Majka
all rights reserved. Reproduced from New Brunswick Naturalist, 1992

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In an article in the British Journal of Photography (Vol. 132, March 1985) Hoyle and associates make the rather astonishing claim that Archaeopteryx is a forgery! From examining the specimen in the British Museum and from photographs which they took of it they argue that the impressions of feathers in the stone were faked. They claim that someone must have made a cement like matrix which was applied to the stone into which chicken feathers were then pressed in order to leave the impressions of plumage! They further claim that the sedimentary textures of the slab and counterslab are different and that on a fine scale these two slabs do not fit 'hand-in-glove' they way in which they ought.

These are astonishing claims and they have been have been reported through the world's media (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, The Times [all in London], Dagens Nyheter [Stockholm], New York Times, etc.). It is a curious dispute because the principal exponents of this view are not paleontologists. Hoyle is an astronomer, his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe is an astrophysicist and Lee Spetner is an Israeli physicist. It calls into question a major piece of fossil evidence regarding evolution and imputes the integrity of Sir Robert Owen, one of the major pillars of British paleontology, who, it is alleged, must have been privy to the hoax. Why Owen, who was an opponent of Darwin and evolution, should have wanted to do something of this sort also boggles the imagination. If such an allegation were true it would be even more astonishing than the expose of the Piltdown Man.


While controversy has surrounded Archaeopteryx for well over 100 years, only within the last fifteen have some scientists begun to question the actual genuineness of some of the fossil finds. Lee Spetner, a respected Israeli scientist, was one of the first to question the validity of certain Archaeopteryx fossils at a meeting of Jewish scientists held in Jerusalem in July 1980. Spetner had studied the British Museum specimen in June 1978, and had pointed out certain discrepancies to Alan Charig, chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the Museum. Dr. Spetner went on to publish a brief item titled “Is the Archaeopteryx a Fake?” (1983), and later stated: “Our contention is that the feather impressions were forged onto a fossil of a flying reptile” (1988, p. 15). In 1985, renowned British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle joined Spetner to reiterate the allegations that the feather impressions of Archaeopteryx were, in fact, a forgery—----www.apologeticspress.org...


As might be expected, however, this charge against such a key “proof” of evolution could not be allowed to stand, and evolutionists everywhere were indignant. A number of papers purportedly refuting the fraud allegation were published, and the furor has died down now, with Archaeopteryx still offered in proof of evolution by most evolutionists. Unfortunately, these fossils now have been locked away in the basement of the British Museum of Natural History, no longer accessible to public view or further research (Morris and Morris, 1996, 2:67-68).





posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I'm going to do something i don't normally do in this thread and debate with you your personal beleifs...maybe that way we can work something out.


I believe that since we were put on a planet ...... God made us


How do you know god made us?


I believe (creationism) to be a fact.


Why do you creationsim is fact?


you can't tell me with Science what the Origin of Life is


Too late!

en.wikipedia.org...


In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.



my belief in ID sounds more reasonable on this subject than Sciences


Ok, if you don't use science to prove ID then how do you?



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

lemme guess.....you think NASA is covering up the moon landing????
Oh my god.
This is the mentality of the people we're having a discussion with.
It figures you refuse to look at scientific data as evidence

Just sad.




Another tactic Darwits do is ask a question then assume the answer for you. Then they ridicule the answer.

If you don't like the answer you get ,,

Consider your source!


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Look, Aermacchi....

I thought of doing this in Private, via U2U.....

BUT I thought it's better to air it out.

I would also invite all moderators to this.

There are certain aspects of members on You-T who use a disparaging term, "AstroNots".

I find this personally offensive.

Aermacchi, YOU have chosen to use, your term....which tends to be equally offensive.

So far, I have NOT notified, via channels, any Mods. THIS IS MY POST to suggest, to you, that you apologize.

Ball's in YOUR court!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Aerm....even YOU, having being so proud to have 'coined' a word....can't even be bothered to spell it correctly!!!

Your term....."Darwitts".....

Of course, by attempting to be clever, you merely have shown your ignorance.

We all make typos....I know that, everyone does.....

But, this comes down to YOUR strategy.....AND, if you wish to 'dazzle' the audience, then you'd better be at your best!!!!

I suggest a leisurely visit back to Page one.....so that you can, again, re-visit the tongue-in-cheek point of the OP.....



What the hell are you blathering about now weed,, do you ever get around to making a point or do you just pretend everyone will be too impressed by your presumptuous inarticulate diatribe?



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
So the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

No, it's definitely not a fact


Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by JPhish
You guys must have "selective reading".

Frankly, you don't want a discussion so that's why I haven't responded to all of your posts. I've tried making points but you're not interested in content, you're interested in deflecting the discussion to avoid content. If that changes, I'll be more then happen to respond to every question you post.


I don’t want a discussion? That’s a new one. Please tell me, what content have I been avoiding? How have I been derailing this thread? By golly I sure do want to change, but it might be hard if I have no idea what I’m doing wrong.


Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf
Yes, and yet in my debates with BAC I've shown that evolution makes more sense when compared to current, living animals than Creationism or ID does.

I personally have not ignored your posts

Well thanks for not ignoring my post, but evolution making more sense than creationism (in your opinion) in not the point of the thread.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


When people come along and say well you know science gets it wrong sometimes right, i just don't trust it or well what abut this religious idea - i just don't believe them it doesn't matter that these scientists are experts.

Folding your arms and saying that you're going to reject responsible peer review science for no other reason then the fact that it disagrees with your preconceptions, that is actually the hight of intellectual arrogance.


I APPLAUD your efforts in trying to communicate the REALITY of what a Scientific Theory is and specifically helping people to understand the theory of evolution.
I also appreciate weedwackers input along with several others who have been using logic and common sense to try and move this thread forward.

My hope was that there were a few people who simply misunderstood the meaning and now that you've posted, they would understand and also applaud your efforts. This unfortunately has been eclipsed by those who are trying to start a war of attrition who have no interest in the truth but are just trying to burn you out so they can suppress the truth.
It's obvious that no matter what we post, they will refute it without evidence.

    -I've seen posts about people who don't believe NASA and I'm assuming the moonlanding, even though there's PROOF.


    -I've seen people post a comment about 2012. I'm assuming they're referring to the whole planet x NON-THEORY even though there's no evidence to support it and evidence to refute it.


    -I've seen people claim the sun is shrinking and was much larger in our recent past. Again with no evidence.


I could go on and on.

These people aren't interested in reason, only furthering their agenda of suppression/obstruction of the truth.

It's a sad day when no amount of evidence is enough to even make people CONSIDER your position.

That being said,
I think you've done a GREAT JOB by standing against the flood of ignorance.
I flagged and starred you !!!



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join