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: 75
65
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
still waiting on that evidence . . .


Actually you were the one who first brought out this issue and claimed that current races are no more similar with each other so how about you provide some evidence.




What's not a unified theory?
GRAVITY is not a theory.


Evolution is a phenomenon. Theory of evolution tries to explain it. Gravity is a phenomenon. There is not a single theory that explains it. We've got 2 theories that explain gravitation on different scales. There's a problem thou. These 2 theories are not compatible with each other. One might say that gravity is a theory in crisis


[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinocerosEvolution is a phenomenon. Theory of evolution tries to explain it. Gravity is a phenomenon. There is not a single theory that explains it. We've got 2 theories that explain gravity on different scales. There's a problem thou. These 2 theories are not compatible with each other. One might say that gravity is a theory in crisis


[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]


So it's okay to ignore gravity until they get it "nailed down"?
Maybe we should consult the BuyBull for a workable scientific theory?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
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.

you are the one complaining about creationists purportedly doing all these things; the burden of proof was on you. Not "google" or myself.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   


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


Exactly.

Example:

I claim that the first letter of the word "Google" is "G". You disagree with me. Conclusion goes as follows: You have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhishyou are the one complaining about creationists purportedly doing all these things; the burden of proof was on you. Not "google" or myself.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]


I could re-state all the BS they've pulled, like Evolution Wars I and II, and the Dover fiasco, and the work done by the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute, but you would ignore it. For the rational reader, investigate those items and you'll be able to get a better idea of the theocratic conspiracy at work to undermine science in this country, and spreading to other countries.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So it's okay to ignore gravity until they get it "nailed down"?
Maybe we should consult the BuyBull for a workable scientific theory?


Why bother. Let's just call it intelligent falling. Goddidit

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
still waiting on that evidence . . .


Actually you were the one who first brought out this issue and claimed that current races are no more similar with each other so how about you provide some evidence.

You were the one that claimed you were right, not i. I said I could be mistaken and made no claims. The burden of proof is on you.



Evolution is a phenomenon. Theory of evolution tries to explain it.

Micro-Evolution is a phenomenon*. Macro-evolution is an atheist wet-dream and the current theory of evolution is the dream-girl.



Gravity is a phenomenon. There is not a single theory that explains it. We've got 2 theories that explain gravitation on different scales. There's a problem thou. These 2 theories are not compatible with each other. One might say that gravity is a theory in crisis
oh, so I’m right and gravity is not a theory? Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


"Micro-Evolution is a phenomenon*. Macro-evolution is an atheist wet-dream and the current theory of evolution is the dream-girl."

ALL evolution is micro. Creatures don't morph successfully from one form to another in one or two generations. Darwin stated that evolution was descent with modification. It's a gradual process. "Macro evolution" is a creationist strawman that further expounds their ignorance of scientific principles, or their willingness to lie to the public about their agenda. Lying is bad, lying for Jesus is good, apparently.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

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


Exactly.

Example:

I claim that the first letter of the word "Google" is "G". You disagree with me. Conclusion goes as follows: You have no idea what you're talking about.


nice quote mining! regardless, it is still apparent your response is illogical.



Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhish

you are the one complaining about creationists purportedly doing all these things; the burden of proof was on you. Not "google" or myself.


I could re-state all the BS they've pulled, like Evolution Wars I and II, and the Dover fiasco, and the work done by the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute, but you would ignore it.

another baseless assertion.


For the rational reader, investigate those items and you'll be able to get a better idea of the theocratic conspiracy at work to undermine science in this country, and spreading to other countries.
nice appeal to flattery.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Micro-Evolution is a phenomenon*. Macro-evolution is an atheist wet-dream and the current theory of evolution is the dream-girl.


And now you shall define micro-evolution and macro-evolution and explain what prevents a lot of micro from being macro.

You shall also explain what telomere sequences are doing in the centerish part of human chromosome number 2 and why all the genes found in this single chromosome can also be found in chimpanzees, only in 2 separate chromosomes.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   


You were the one that claimed you were right, not i. I said I could be mistaken and made no claims. The burden of proof is on you.


Human populations share 100% of their loci with each other. At least I've never read anywhere otherwise. We've read that we didn't share 100% of our loci with Neanderthals. Obvious conclusion is..?



oh, so I’m right and gravity is not a theory? Thanks for clearing that up.


The theory doesn't even exist yet, so I guess you're partly right. Gravity, it's not even a theory.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish
 

ALL evolution is micro.

Couldn’t agree more.


Creatures don't morph successfully from one form to another in one or two generations.

apparently.


Darwin stated that evolution was descent with modification.

Darwin hypothesized* that evolution was descent with modification.


It's a gradual process.

Theoretically


"Macro evolution" is a creationist strawman that further expounds their ignorance of scientific principles, or their willingness to lie to the public about their agenda. Lying is bad, lying for Jesus is good, apparently.
I seem to have caught my self a REALLY BIG RED-HERRRING.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhishI seem to have caught my self a REALLY BIG RED-HERRRING.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]

You dispute the fact that ICR and the Discovery Institute intend to put creationism into the science classrooms? That their agenda is religously driven (as the judge at Dover pointed out)?

Sorry, not a red-herring, just the facts. The whole "evolution is just a theory" plot is part of the program to control what is taught in schools by a group of religious zealots that are plotting to subvert the Constitution.

And people think this is a site to discuss conspiracies? Evidently some of them are "sacred".



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Micro-Evolution is a phenomenon*. Macro-evolution is an atheist wet-dream and the current theory of evolution is the dream-girl.


And now you shall define micro-evolution and macro-evolution and explain what prevents a lot of micro from being macro.

In a nutshell
Microevolution: organisms exhibiting genetic variations over time.
Macroevolution: organisms becoming dissimilar organisms.


You shall also explain what telomere sequences are doing in the centerish part of human chromosome number 2 and why all the genes found in this single chromosome can also be found in chimpanzees, only in 2 separate chromosomes.
easiest way for me to explain that is . . . RED-HERRING.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish easiest way for me to explain that is . . . RED-HERRING.


Easy way to avoid answering the question. Kind of boring, thought, failing so much?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhishI seem to have caught my self a REALLY BIG RED-HERRRING.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]

You dispute the fact that ICR and the Discovery Institute intend to put creationism into the science classrooms? That their agenda is religously driven (as the judge at Dover pointed out)?

Sorry, not a red-herring, just the facts. The whole "evolution is just a theory" plot is part of the program to control what is taught in schools by a group of religious zealots that are plotting to subvert the Constitution.

And people think this is a site to discuss conspiracies? Evidently some of them are "sacred".
what on earth are you talking about? I didn’t even bring it up. It’s been a red herring from the get go. I simply asked that if you were going to make claims you back them with evidence and you decided to go off on this irrelevant tangent.


Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
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.

this was the original post(which was a red herring), i said nothing of the ICR, the Discovery Institute, science classrooms, the judge at Dover, or the constitution.

RED
HERRING
SPAWN

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish what on earth are you talking about? I didn’t even bring it up. It’s been a red herring from the get go. I simply asked that if you were going to make claims you back them with evidence and you decided to go off on this irrelevant tangent.


Bluster away. You have accused me of trotting out a red-herring. I showed where my statement was relevant. Good luck with any deflection you want to provide from this point forward.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhish easiest way for me to explain that is . . . RED-HERRING.


Easy way to avoid answering the question. Kind of boring, thought, failing so much?


it's the logical way of PRECLUDING illogical and irrelevant arguments. Logic is boring?

PS: people tend to excel at things they enjoy.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhish what on earth are you talking about? I didn’t even bring it up. It’s been a red herring from the get go. I simply asked that if you were going to make claims you back them with evidence and you decided to go off on this irrelevant tangent.

Bluster away. You have accused me of trotting out a red-herring.

Apparently you have, and until you show otherwise, I’m going to have to stand by my claim.


I showed where my statement was relevant.

Where???
Oh I get it . . .
is this is another one of those bare assertion fallacies where something occurred merely because you say it did?


Good luck with any deflection you want to provide from this point forward.
are you sure you didn’t accidentally respond to your own posts with this one? You’re the one “deflecting” the argument; as I’ve already shown HERE

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhishPS: people tend to excel at things they enjoy.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]

Well, if you enjoy failing, do carry on.

For anyone who wants a thorough debunking of the creationists claims, I suggest talk.orgins archive, TalkOrigins Archive.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join