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: 70
65
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Gee isn't that unusual,, another atheist, thinking he represents the "science community"

Let me ask you something Jezus,,

Are YOU, a Scientist?




posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


it's illogically presented! one shouldn't even consider entertaining the notions for that reason alone.

Wits already "shot it down" with logic

argumentum ad verecundiam
&
argumentum ad populum

the reason why you're having trouble arguing your point is because your beliefs are 100% faith based and logically destitute.


[edit on 4/16/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Look it up gawds, no one here is responsible to explain to you what you not only will not, but cannot understand. I suggest when you hear big words like "diatribe", you google the definition ."

I already posted the definition, oh end-of-the-page person. And it did not describe a straight forward listing of sound scientific principles, no matter how desperately the IDers want to ignore them.

And I don't expect explanations, just wishful thinking and unfounded speculation.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



The scientific method is only as effective as the scientists are honest and in most cases, none of them bother to use the scientific method for if they did, the theory of evolution could not pass it for the same reasons creation cannot. The logical fallacy for assuming the consequent just like my esteemed friend Jphish points out in the above post for gawds assuming the fossil record is true because he assume evolution is true but has never been observed beyond those adaptations and variation already inherant in the DNA.


I do not mean this to be insulting, but you have a very poor understanding of science.

The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Einstein in 1912. In 1924, Albert Einstein remarked upon this effect in 1936 in a paper prompted by a letter by a Czech engineer, R W Mandl [1], but stated
"Of course, there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly." (Science vol 84 p 506 1936).
I believe that this was finally seen in either 1979 or 1998. However, scientists had tested his theory in other ways prior to that and it had held up to testing.

Evolution is a testable theory. Predictions can be made off of evolution and we can test these other predictions. Because it requires extremely long periods of time in which to work, we cannot sit and watch species evolve into other species before our eyes. However, it can be tested by other means... just like Einstein's theories were indirectly tested until our technology caught up.

We have evidence from many different branches of science that do not reject/disprove evolution. If the evidence applies to evolution and does not disprove (but rather supports) its predictions, then it is supportive evidence. If we were finding that DNA/genetics, the fossil record, etc... did not agree with evolutionary theory, then one of those theories could be wrong. Instead, we find them in agreement.


I see atheists using the crusades to attack religions all the time. Same old centuries old argument given as if it was yesterday.


You’re using the example of the crusades is irrelevant to the discussion. Strawman argument. Whether evolution is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with some atheists attacking religion.


Yes yes and can you imagine ID scientists using these "excuses" to dis-miss all the same issues they argued during the Dover trial .. No way andre, I hold evolutionists to the same damn standards they have ID and that is why they will never pass the scientific method.


I'm not saying that ID is wrong. I am saying that ID is not science. It is not a testable theory. How do you prove it wrong? Evolution could have been proven wrong tons of times... yet instead, we find supportive evidence again and again.


Again, andre you sound as if you WANT to be related to monkeys? The fact is we have many very strange things going on in our DNA where they will be trying to figure out HOW were are related for as long as eternity. When it comes to chromosmes we look more related to a potato


The percentage of how close neanderthals is to us compared to chimps doesn't really mean much. You’re putting too much stock in something without reason. Why is it important to you that neanderthals were close to us genetically? Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce ligers, Horses and donkeys produce mules. Neanderthals were still close enough to us to possibly interbreed, so what? I think you'd agree that dogs can really look different from one another and still interbreed while still sharing almost all their genetic code.

Why don't you ask someone who is an expert in genetics about whether evolution is true? From what your implying, genetics disproves evolution (which is far from the truth). If your implications are true, then wouldn't everyone involved with genetics say that evolution were false?


We know this is a fact it is not analog but digital and THAT my freind can only come about via intelligence VASTS amounts of it and not vasts amount of time afterall


Sorry, but you really need to read some other texts than the bible. That makes absolutely no sense at all. None. It's like holding up a potato and exclaiming,

"unicorns exist!"

At the end, you're again throwing out another strawman.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason.

Thucydides



Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, openmindedness and humility that many of them might like others to believe.

Marcello Truzzi



In reality, those who repudiate a theory that they had once proposed, or a theory that they had accepted enthusiastically and with which they had identified themselves, are very rare. The great majority of them shut their ears so as not to hear the crying facts, and they shut their eyes so as not to see the glaring facts, in order to remain faithful to their theories in spite of all and everything.

Maurice Arthus



"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say."
-- John McCarthy



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

I do not mean this to be insulting, but you have a very poor understanding of science.


No, I don't,,, at least not when compared to you andre for instance, your comparisons are completely off the mark. Einstein was using his research in his theory of relativity, the pure science of mathmatics is employed and is why this analogy of yours is an insult to his work.

Einstein would have never bought into the theory of evolution if alive today because the math doesn't add up. I have already shown the latest data on DNA which proves mutation is not a prime mover




Evolution is a testable theory. Predictions can be made off of evolution and we can test these other predictions. Because it requires extremely long periods of time in which to work, we cannot sit and watch species evolve into other species before our eyes. However, it can be tested by other means...


Give me just one example andre that doesn't include COMPUTER models that have ALL been debunked. Give me one example where fruit fly experiments proved successful or any other idea you might have.

Tell us why humans all over the world are still born with two arms five fingers two hands etc. Tell us why we can trace DNA all the way back to the tribes of israel. Tell us why every single living fossil ever found was always exactly like those fossils found 55 million years ago in some cases.
All of them fully intact?




We have evidence from many different branches of science that do not reject/disprove evolution. If the evidence applies to evolution and does not disprove (but rather supports) its predictions, then it is supportive evidence. If we were finding that DNA/genetics, the fossil record, etc... did not agree with evolutionary theory, then one of those theories could be wrong. Instead, we find them in agreement.


Share with me andre just one example so I can show you how easily debunked this idiotic religion of evolution is. Show us andre, just don't make assertions.



You’re using the example of the crusades is irrelevant to the discussion. Strawman argument. Whether evolution is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with some atheists attacking religion.


In the context of your question andre, it illustrates that evolutionists have a double standard for what can be said and what can't and you just proved that point.



I'm not saying that ID is wrong. I am saying that ID is not science. It is not a testable theory. How do you prove it wrong? Evolution could have been proven wrong tons of times... yet instead, we find supportive evidence again and again.


and I am saying show me just one example andre. Show us evidence that a species change can take place proving all we have recently found out to be true about DNA is wrong. I think you'll fail



The percentage of how close neanderthals is to us compared to chimps doesn't really mean much. You’re putting too much stock in something without reason.


It wasn't I putting stock in it andre, because I don't believe in the neanderthal hoax to begin with.




Why is it important to you that neanderthals were close to us genetically? Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce ligers


You are funny andre, for someone who thinks he has the room to tell me I don't have a good understanding of science. You use the predictable variation within a species called breeding to equivocate the theory of adaptation and variation, often used as an example of evolution. They are all members of the Panthera genus, andre, the female liger is sterile and cannot reproduce for one of many of the reasons evolution is not only unlikely but impossible.




Neanderthals were still close enough to us to possibly interbreed, so what?


Neanderthals DNA proves to be the exact same as mine is compared to yours andre, THAT MEANS THEY WERE HUMAN JUST LIKE US.



I think you'd agree that dogs can really look different from one another and still interbreed while still sharing almost all their genetic code.


You are equivocating again andre, this is typical of evolutionists and it is intellectually dishonest. Like domestic dogs, may represent more of different breeds than different species.

For centuries before Darwin, breeders knew that there had to be "a means to pass on information from one generation to another." They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. In fact, the theory of heredity that Darwin proposed turned out to be completely wrong.

Modern genetics originated in 1865 with an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, who had never heard of Darwin's theory and probably would have rejected it if he had. Indeed, when Darwinists finally learned of Mendel's theory of inheritance they ignored it for decades before finally accepting it in the 1930s.

Genetics is not the only biological discipline that owes nothing to Darwin. Most modern disciplines in biology including anatomy and physiology, zoology and botany, systematics and paleontology were founded by scientists who were either pre-Darwinian or anti-Darwinian.


Why don't you ask someone who is an expert in genetics about whether evolution is true? From what your implying, genetics disproves evolution (which is far from the truth). If your implications are true, then wouldn't everyone involved with genetics say that evolution were false?


Not neccessarily, look at you for example. You won't let go of that dead theory "the pinpointing of genetic diseases." the medical benefits have been surprisingly thin. Diseases caused by specific genetic defects constitute only about 2% of human ailments. The genetic basis of the remaining 98% remains a matter for speculation. Current Science is scrambling to keep the emergence of a new ID theory from having its rightful place at the Science table while a review of the scientific literature to learn that even Darwinian biologists no longer think that humans and bacteria are descended from a single ancestral cell. There are just too many inconsistencies in the molecular data.

all people, including all evolutionists, individually and collectively are very finite in knowledge andre, we all must take many things by faith including Darwinists. So in one sense faith in God is no different from faith in your doctor or car mechanic or evolutionary geology teacher

You are right about the process, testability and changeability of science andre. But since the evolutionary scientific establishment keeps the public from hearing the scientific objections to the evolution raised by Ph.D. scientists, etc. it continues to offer the very excuse you have given for the reason why it hasn't been buried 6ft under in a casket for tried and died theory but I think DNA and the recent discovery that makes it impossible for DNA to evolve into species diversity but rather using the blue prints' of a design and a digital code with a backup archiver not even mutations can mess up. It is pure devine Genius.

But what else would you expect

from the hand of

GOD



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Share with me andre just one example so I can show you how easily debunked this idiotic religion of evolution is. "

I see that debunking is okay here if the right person does it.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Share with me andre just one example so I can show you how easily debunked this idiotic religion of evolution is. "

I see that debunking is okay here if the right person does it.


Thanks for observing the obvious gawds, I mean allowing Evolutionists to do it is like asking Chuck to dis his own theory. Somehow I just can't trust someone like you to do it either and that is why Science is so screwed up today. Your religion of Atheism depends on Darwin too much for all of you to feel like intellectually fulfilled atheist's.

You know, you might want to try rising above the level of Critical thinking called ridicule before your thinking gets any further into critical condition.

I mean is this all you got?

it is isn't it. This is

your best stuff


WoW!



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Somehow I just can't trust someone like you to do it either and that is why Science is so screwed up today. Your religion of Atheism depends on Darwin too much for all of you to feel like intellectually fulfilled atheist's."

That's a good way to say, "I don't believe it, and you'll never provide enough evidence to prove it. " Sealed Mind Syndrome.

I do love it when people call atheism a "religion". Trying to pull us down to your level really won't work. Rationality trumps religion.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Hmmmm. Sealed mind syndrome. Did you really just condeme them for THAT? Might want to take a nice long look in the mirror. I won't hold my breath though. I do so love watching others condeme still others for crimes they themselves commit.
It validates my abysmal view of humanity.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Hmmmm. Sealed mind syndrome. Did you really just condeme them for THAT? Might want to take a nice long look in the mirror. I won't hold my breath though. I do so love watching others condeme still others for crimes they themselves commit.
It validates my abysmal view of humanity.


If I didn't like you so much I'd think that was ad hom.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Just pointing out the obvious. And I love you too hunny bunny.

This is a grand old second line that deserve many blessings from winged monkeys.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Unsealed *or open* minds do not spend as much time scoffing at other's idea/beliefs/whatever as certain members on this forum.
And before you accuse me of scoffing at the OP I will go ahead and clarify that I am disagreeing not scoffing, I fully accept that the unspoken premise of this thread is that his spiritual beliefs of null could be correct, though I obviously disagree. But that is not what this thread is claimed to be about, it was about the factuality of the theory of evolution. Which it is not fact, it contains some proven facts, that is true, but what it does not do like so many atheists seem to think it does, it does not invalidate spirituality. It sickens me how much this subbject alone has turned into little more than a BS proxy war between atheists and theists. Even despite that fact that many theists can and do accept a good chunk of evolution as fact. And NEITHER side is blameless for this petty silliness.



[edit on 17-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
well, if the EArth is 4.5 billion (?) years old, why the oldest tree I can find on google About 10.000 years old ? Sholdnt it be atleas some millions of years old ?? And estimated with carbon dating wich is non-reliable as it gives off 1000's of years wrong data ?????


Old Tree



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
well, if the EArth is 4.5 billion (?) years old, why the oldest tree I can find on google About 10.000 years old ? Sholdnt it be atleas some millions of years old ?? And estimated with carbon dating wich is non-reliable as it gives off 1000's of years wrong data ?????


Old Tree


Why would you think trees can live for millions of years?

Carbon-14 dating is good for items less than 5,800 years old. Other means are used for older material. And, yes, Carbon-14 can be fooled. That's why it's never the only means of determining the age of an item. (They also check the driver's license and birth certificates.)



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
When it comes to chromosmes we look more related to a potato.


And when it comes to things that exist, like for example chromosomes we certainly look more related to apes than potatoes. You know how we are like diploid organisms. Apes (like let's say chimps) are diploid as well. We humans (normal ones) have 2 x 23 chromosomes. Chimps have 2 x 24 chromosomes. I'm reading that potatoes have 4 x 12. You know, they're like tetraploid. They have 4 sets of chromosomes where as humans and chimps have 2 sets of chromosomes. Polyploidy is quite rare in animals.

To truly appreciate the scope of fail you made there one needs to understand at least a little bit of genetics. Anyways. I literally lol'd when I read your post. That claim was so friggin' ridiculous


[edit on 19-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Neanderthals DNA proves to be the exact same as mine is compared to yours andre, THAT MEANS THEY WERE HUMAN JUST LIKE US.


Human genome = 3 billion base pairs
Neanderthal genome = 3,2 billion base pairs

Even thou you WROTE IT IN CAPS they certainly weren't just like us. Have you ever seen a Neanderthal skeleton? I guess you haven't.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Evolution Vs. Creationism: There's No Debate
by Michael in New York on 6/22/2005 11:25:00 AM
When Kansas held hearings on the "debate" between evolution and "intelligent design" (ie. the Bible), a curious thing happened according to the New York Times. Most major science organizations refused to take part.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Jezus
 


Ah so a blog is a reputable source now? But either way, as I said before politics does not equate validity. There is also a large logical fallacy to that it's called: argumentum ad verecundiam or maybe argumentum ad populum *I lean towards the latter., regardless of if it's valid or not.


How can you absurdly refer to argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum (which doesn't make sense is this context because I am not citing a general majority or mass but rather a majority of SCIENTISTS) and in the same post attack the source of the information rather than the information itself...

Ad hominem
en.wikipedia.org...

The title of this thread is centered on scientific terminology, so that fact that in the scientific world this debate does not exist would seem exceedingly relevant.



Originally posted by Aermacchi
reply to post by Jezus
 


Gee isn't that unusual,, another atheist, thinking he represents the "science community"

Let me ask you something Jezus,,

Are YOU, a Scientist?


The fact that I AM a scientist isn't relevant to anything.

You could be a scientist too, all you have to do is critically think and experiment rather than accept and believe.

Scientists don't believe, they observe and analyze.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Neanderthals DNA proves to be the exact same as mine is compared to yours andre, THAT MEANS THEY WERE HUMAN JUST LIKE US.

Human genome = 3 billion base pairs
Neanderthal genome = 3,2 billion base pairs

i'd love to know where you are getting those numbers


Have you ever seen a Neanderthal skeleton?
i have, and based on their bone density and the size of their craniums; i think it's safe to assume they were a lot stronger than us AND a lot smarter than us.

i still consider them human none the less . . .

[edit on 4/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Lots of places, for example:

dsc.discovery.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...


It's common knowledge, that the human genome is "just over" 3 billion base pairs in size, thus Neanderthal genome was some 200 million base pairs larger. You know some of our chromosomes are smaller than that. Our Y-chromosome for example is just 60 million base pairs









[edit on 20-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join