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: 74
65
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
Science is GREAT & since the Creator created all sciences i suggest you try using them for a change, it might help you understand how he did it all! Answer me this non scientifically then, Why is YESHUA the single most written about person in history,why is he the focal point for civilization,why is it that no mater what you say or do HE'S still there, all the words ever spoken,all the deeds ever done,all the wars ever fought,all the thoughts ever taught have neither thawarted HIS message,altered HIS course nor have they changed this world a percentage as much as this ONE single,solitary man,and you think you have the intellect to challenge or dispute him, come on,think about it before you reply, PLease...



Opinions are not facts. You're opinions are yours. They don't necessarily reflect reality. Remember, too, that most of the people on the planet don't follow your god. Remember also that you have no proof for him.




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
Why is YESHUA the single most written about person in history


Who?

I did a google battle with Yeshua vs. Batman:



yeshua 918,000
batman 80,000,000
GoogleBattle winner is batman



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
you are just trying to use micro to explain macro,get with it skippy!




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
you are just trying to use micro to explain macro,get with it skippy!



All evolution is micro. Small, cumulative changes occurring over time. What's so hard about that?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
weak, REALLY weak,why are you afraid of him?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


I just tell them "Yeah, and gravity is also only a theory, but you don't see the earths rotation flinging us off into space, do you?"

They are scientifically ignorant, it helps to put things in their simplest terms.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
OMG,learn a little bit about your theory before you try defending it.Really, it's pretty sad when a person starts a discussion and they dont know what they are talking about. Evolution uses both micro & macro to explain the orgins of all things, just because you are unaware of this doesn't keep it from having been in numerous textbooks that are in the public school systems (I know this because i've helped get them removed), Many states require that a text be both "accurate & current". The "something from nothing"clause in your fairytale makes this easy as does lucy & many others.




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
OMG,learn a little bit about your theory before you try defending it.Really, it's pretty sad when a person starts a discussion and they dont know what they are talking about. Evolution uses both micro & macro to explain the orgins of all things, just because you are unaware of this doesn't keep it from having been in numerous textbooks that are in the public school systems (I know this because i've helped get them removed), Many states require that a text be both "accurate & current". The "something from nothing"clause in your fairytale makes this easy as does lucy & many others.



I was quoting Jerry A. Coyne, Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Chicago University. But do try again, this is amusing.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

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


Yet you make the claim that you are. If it is irrevelant why did you bring it up then? And I would really appreciate it you not make such knee jerk responses as to what I am or am not, you don't know me, don't pretend you do. I do observe and my beliefs are based off my observations. We all have opinions friend and just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not paying attention like you in your self righteous crusade to demean beliefs not yours likes to think. It's an opinion call as the question has not been answered, and may never be answered.
To be a scientist does not mean I have to agree with you or accept whole heartedly what others attempt to feed me as fact. It's funny the sheer amount of people that believe only people like them or people they approve of or agree with can be certain things.



1. I didn't bring it up, I was asked.
2. Look at your first reply to me, who is trying to be demeaning?

3. You keep talking about opinion and believing people.

I don't believe anyone. I don't believe anything. I observe everything.

You problem with evolution is not a problem with believing it is a problem of understanding.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
OMG,learn a little bit about your theory before you try defending it.Really, it's pretty sad when a person starts a discussion and they dont know what they are talking about. Evolution uses both micro & macro to explain the orgins of all things, just because you are unaware of this doesn't keep it from having been in numerous textbooks that are in the public school systems (I know this because i've helped get them removed), Many states require that a text be both "accurate & current". The "something from nothing"clause in your fairytale makes this easy as does lucy & many others.



So your claim is that there's some force that prevents a lot of micro from becoming macro? Can you point me to some scientific papers that speak of this force? I'm interested in where micro ends and macro starts. Is for example fusion of chromosomes microevolution or macroevolution? There's undeniable evidence that it has happened. As you claim being an expert on the issue, surely you understand what changes in chromosome count lead to and I don't need to spell it out for you. Also clarify "something from nothing" clause. I'm a student of natural sciences and have never heard of such clause concerning evolution. Surely you can't be talking about abiogenesis because as an expert you're aware that it's not part of the theory of evolution.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s really high buddy. Unless I’m mistaken, there's nearly as much genetic disparity between current races of humans at the moment.


You're mistaken.

This is the part where you provide evidence.


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s assuming a lot.


You think? I don't, plenty of evidence around that we haven't gone thru a bottle neck since.
for me, it’s assuming a lot; for me, unless you were there you should never say that something did or didn’t happen. Even if you WERE there, you should still be tentative to claim to know what happened.


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
There are several ways.


Such as?

Ways that 100 genes could arrive without you being able to explain it?

this should be a fun exercise

1. Evolution doesn’t work the way you presume
2. “Aliens” intervened
3. “G*d” intervened

and just for fun

4. All of the above

Those are several; I could come up with more, but it would be superfluous.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by andre18
 


I just tell them "Yeah, and gravity is also only a theory, but you don't see the earths rotation flinging us off into space, do you?"

They are scientifically ignorant, it helps to put things in their simplest terms.

Well i'll put things in VERY simple terms for you SpacePunk.

GRAVITY is not a theory.

YOU are "scientifically" ignorant.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


1. I didn't bring it up, I was asked.


After alluding that you were.


2. Look at your first reply to me, who is trying to be demeaning?


Nothing demeaning about my response to except to point out that you ran affoul of certain logical fallacies, which you did. If you feel demeaned for being chastised I don't know what to tell you.


3. You keep talking about opinion and believing people.
I don't believe anyone. I don't believe anything. I observe everything.


Rrriiggghhhttt. So that blog you provided was yours? Just for starters.


You problem with evolution is not a problem with believing it is a problem of understanding.


Firstly lovely grammar there, truly worthy of someone who alludes then states he has a doctorate under his belt. Secondly, must be such a lovely copout excuse of an insult I see it used so much. Too bad it's completely false, I grasp the theory of evolution. But I do not accept it as gospel, unlike some. It is a theory, some parts proven some parts not. Thusly the reason it is still called theory. Now we could get into nuts and bolts if you like but I hardly think this is the thread for that.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   


This is the part where you provide evidence.

Current races share 100% of their loci with each other.



for me, it’s assuming a lot; for me, unless you were there you should never say that something did or didn’t happen. Even if you WERE there, you should still be tentative to claim to know what happened.


If only you understood genetics.



Ways that 100 genes could arrive without you being able to explain it?

this should be a fun exercise

1. Evolution doesn’t work the way you presume
2. “Aliens” intervened
3. “G*d” intervened

and just for fun

4. All of the above

Those are several; I could come up with more, but it would be superfluous.


Does anything point to any of these being the case? Nope. Does anything point to what I said being the case? Yep, everything.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

GRAVITY is not a theory.



It's not a unified theory. There are many theories of gravity.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
If only you understood genetics.

So . . . if I understood genetics I would agree with you; but since I don’t agree with you, I must not understand genetics?

Let’s turn this into a logical formula.

I understand genetics = P
I agree with you. = Q

If P, then Q
If ⌐Q
Then ⌐P

Let’s digress . . .

If I understood genetics, I would agree with you
But I don’t agree with you, and since it is DESIRABLE for me to agree with you
(for you)
Then I do not understand genetics

So in review

If P, then Q
⌐Q is undesirable
Therefore ⌐P

What do we have here?

;ding ding ding;

Argumentum ad consequentiam!

Congratulations on “poisoning the well” also.


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Ways that 100 genes could arrive without you being able to explain it?

this should be a fun exercise

1. Evolution doesn’t work the way you presume
2. “Aliens” intervened
3. “G*d” intervened

and just for fun

4. All of the above

Those are several; I could come up with more, but it would be superfluous.


Yeah that makes way more sense

Does anything point to any of the above? Ummm no? Does anything point to what I said. Ummm yes, everything.


Let’s turn this into a logical expression

X = You

A = Everything I said is false and everything you said is true

Fact 1: X claims A is true.
Fact 2: X claims X are correct.
Conclusion: Therefore A is true.

So your claims are correct because you claim to be correct. . .

We have a winner!

;ding ding ding;

It’s a bare assertion fallacy.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
This is the part where you provide evidence.

Current races share 100% of their loci with each other.

still waiting on that evidence . . .


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

GRAVITY is not a theory.



It's not a unified theory. There are many theories of gravity.

What's not a unified theory?

GRAVITY is not a theory.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

GRAVITY is not a theory.



It's not a unified theory. There are many theories of gravity.


Excuse me, but there's no doubt that gravity is a fact. There are theories about how gravity works, but no sane person denies that gravity exists. WHY it works is still being investigated. It's the same with most of our knowledge. We see something in action and ask "why does that happen"? Then we develop a theory to explain it, and test that theory. If it shows promise, we continue with it. If not, we move on. That's what confuses (or so they say) creationists. They pretend that "just a theory" is a good reason to doubt the existence of a phenomenon that has been thorough demonstrated. They are lying in all probability, because science is not their goal, it's religious domination of the public.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Excuse me, but there's no doubt that gravity is a fact. There are theories about how gravity works, but no sane person denies that gravity exists. WHY it works is still being investigated. It's the same with most of our knowledge. We see something in action and ask "why does that happen"? Then we develop a theory to explain it, and test that theory.

Thanks for the fourth grade lecture.



If it shows promise, we continue with it. If not, we move on.

No, that’s what people SHOULD be doing; but most don’t. Take for example, SR/GR. Proven to be false, yet still considered viable theories because some refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong.


That's what confuses (or so they say) creationists. They pretend that "just a theory" is a good reason to doubt the existence of a phenomenon that has been thorough demonstrated. They are lying in all probability, because science is not their goal, it's religious domination of the public.

Baseless assertions . . . Anytime you’d like to present EVIDENCE, please do; Just one example supporting any of your claims would suffice.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


You want proof of what, please. You just dissed my reply without substance. If you want proof of creationist plans to invade science class rooms, google "the wedge document" and read it.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join