Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 84
63
<< 81  82  83   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Excuse me rhinoceros, didn't I just make it obvious I understand we didn't evolve from chimps, gorillas, orangutans or any other known species on the planet? No sh.t it's basic stuff. You ask me to provide sources to back up my statement when I don't need to. This IS very basic stuff. There is no evidence supporting the THEORY (notice the key word here?) that we did evolve from apes and your post has done little to convince me otherwise. I already acknowledged the fact that humans and apes have DNA that closely match, yet there is still no conclusive proof that we evolved from apes.



[edit on 21-5-2009 by StevesResearch]

[edit on 21-5-2009 by StevesResearch]




posted on May, 23 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I apologies for my tardy post, I have had family matters that I’m attending to . . .


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
It couldn’t have been a false analogy when you claimed it was because it was not presented as an analogy. It was initially a riddle but it may be used as an analogy.

Fact remains: if it's used an an analogy, then it's a false one.

I don’t believe it is, but sure, let’s throw it out as an analogy. I wasn’t intending to use it as one in the first place.


So basically you're saying that imperfect people can't get anything right?

No, I’m saying that, according to you, when they do get things right, it’s by chance and necessity.


Or is it only that imperfect people can't get the explanation to life right?

we’re all perfect or we’re all imperfect; It depends on your perception.


So on one side
you've got a mountain of evidence from so many fields gathered and interpreted by imperfect people and on the other side the fact that it could be something else (thou nothing points to this). It's like cows could fly, thou nothing points to this being the case. Your argument is very weak.
you don’t even know what my argument is, so I don’t understand how you could determine that. I haven’t even begun to fully exercise my position.


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
oh I have a pretty good idea, but I would never claim to know.

Care to share?

Not really, my beliefs aren’t particularly relevant.


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Would you not agree that is unreasonable for something based solely on a feeling to claim to be logical???

Yes. Of course modern evolutionary synthesis isn't based solely on feeling, but on evidence gathered from many different fields of science. You failed to address how it's not sensible. You tried to answer "why”.
it is based solely on feeling and that is why it is not sensible . . . if you wish for me to digress, i will.

[edit on 5/23/2009 by JPhish]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
"Only a theory"?

Well, yes...in exactly the same way that gravity is "only a theory".

You don't have to "believe" in gravity either, but if you fall off a 20-story building onto concrete, you'll find out just how real gravity is, whether you "believe" in it or not!!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
in the same vein as above, think of it this way. How is it possible for bacteria to survive even one treatment of antibiotics. How are superbugs becoming so prevalent. I doubt more than three were leaked science projects. Evolution is the only way to explain new bacteria and in fact new viruses because whether we think they are they reproduce the same way as parasitic wasps, tapeworms, and higher amphibians, reptiles, and mammals to a certain extent. Also, I am sure god just sits on a cloud and creates the dozens of new species discovered in well-studied areas. To say that evolution is not proven is like saying hydrodynamics is just a theory. We all have seen water turn to steam and then rain back down two days later. We have been to the beach. But it is still a theory. It is the same with evolution.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by StevesResearch
 


No I am not saying that. I am saying that cross breeding can show relation genetically if it has not happened to many mutations ago. They are different species, related to the same ancestor and have a similar genetic make up.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution.

Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.

Is this a setup too


heh...here is one fact about evolution that is not widely known:

The idea of "Survival of the fittest" was part of the the philosophic basis for The German Orden, later called the Nazi's. It justified their inherent right to rule the world. It was also used as the basis for Italy's Fascists and still serves fascist causes worldwide.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by seataka]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by seataka
The idea of "Survival of the fittest" was part of the the philosophic basis for The German Orden, later called the Nazi's. It justified their inherent right to rule the world. It was also used as the basis for Italy's Fascists and still serves fascist causes worldwide.

It's just another name for natural selection and people tend to have no clue what "fittest" in this context means. Like let's have a look at 2 praying mantis males. Which one is "fitter", the one that gets eaten by the female after sex, or the one that manages to escape? To be honest, I'm not sure. I can think of one very good reason/possibility, why the one that gets eaten might be the fitter one. Can you?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 




I am not mocking, I just think that is the funniest response I've ever seen, on ATS!!!!

I don't often give six laughs....but, that one deserved it!!!!

Thanks, once again....for making me actually Laugh out Loud!!!!




[edit on 5/31/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The problem with what you're saying is that it's very clear that "science" is controlled and manipulated for it's social controlled benefits. It isn't honest and objective as anyone with common sense would like it to be. When you say there are agreements, the problem is there are bought agreements, there are carrier benefiting conformity, etc. that mar the subject of legitimacy of any so called agreement. If we where living in the real world where a "scientist" really had access to honest information and open minded discussion really exists, I suspect there would be an overwhelming dismissal of "Evolution" as nonsense. Commonsense and statistics simply make evolution ridiculous and claiming there is a scientific "Theory" of this or that just isn't dealing with the reality of life in a controlled, fictitious society.

I can bet that you are well educated, which, for the most part means you are a good and eager memorizer of what they want you to know and how they want you to think and view things. You can have the worlds best academic skills and still not have the common sense to know truth from a lie. The mind is so constructed as to find the more ridiculous entertaining and believable. I would suggest that you spend your time not defending your academic conditioning but on introspecting into what they have done to you. Try to cultivate commonsense. Most of what is projected on us a truth is no sensible.

"Theory" as you portray it, is still an interpretation of patters and the conformity to interpretation is what is being manipulated against society and common sense. Because some patter of change takes place it doesn't mean the interpretation projected upon it is correct ie truth.






top topics



 
63
<< 81  82  83   >>

log in

join