evolution: The greatest conspiracy

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
I think Andy plays too many video games online.
Wow
You seem to spend an awful lot of time online, my friend.
Perhaps you should take a break? You aren't going to
change any of our minds on this topic.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Source

Mod Edit: Added external source tags and source.

Posting work written by others - PLEASE REVIEW!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by andrewh7


Andrew, all you are doing is copy/pasting FROM the internet - yet bashing others for bringing Google information here.

Here's your post...... straight off of Google.
here



What is your goal here?

reply to post by andrewh7


And you just copy/pasted AGAIN from Google.........


You are busted, my friend.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument ........

Proof

You just lost your credibility - if you had any to begin with.





[edit on 5-10-2009 by nomorecruelty]

Originally posted by John Matrix
Source:
creation.com...

This is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. This is a paper that starts with a conclusion and thereafter seeks to prove it. That is the opposite of the scientific method.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups."

As opposed to, let's say..............

An entity who will make you suffer in a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't obey all of the rules as established by medieval men on behalf of the invisible entity who will punish you.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that "he" loves you.

reply to post by andrewh7


Yes, John Matrix - go to Google and just copy/paste........ Google/internet is, apparently, an acceptable "peer reviewed academic journal" in Andrew's eyes. But only he can use Google. We are forbidden lest we should be debunked and ridiculed.




[edit on 5-10-2009 by nomorecruelty]

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Andrew, all you are doing is copy/pasting FROM the internet - yet bashing others for bringing Google information here.

Here's your post...... straight off of Google.
here

What is your goal here?

We are all speaking English right now. We are using vocabulary and terminology that was created by someone else.

I didn't come up with the word "oxygen" and you certainly didn't author any of the Bible passages you see as authority.

What is your goal in pointing out that I am giving you textbook information in response to your questions regarding basic textbook science?

You claimed that humans and bacteria are not composed of the same basic building blocks. That was wrong. I gave you a textbook description of the basic building blocks of life.

Rather than admit you were wrong you are making another irrelevant attack. Nothing I have stated with regard to scientific knowledge was created or tested by me. I am not a research scientist but I have a diverse educational background from both my high school courses and the scientific courses I took to get my bachelors degree. This experience has given me the ability to immediately reference the information I need to form a satisfactory rebuttals to almost everything you stated.

Attorneys don't write the law - they cite the law and legal precedent to make their points. Arguing on scientific topics is no different, provided I do not ask you to accept novel scientific theories that have yet to be firmly established and accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

If I mention say, the element of carbon, I did not discover and name carbon or measure its properties. I am entitled to refer you to sources of accurate information on this topic. Describing and citing established scientific ideas and principals is not a domain reserved solely to scientists themselves.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by andrewh7


Eh, because *you* said that getting info from Google isn't a "peer reviewed academic journal".

Sorry to break it to you, but finding something on the internet does not make it true. I could type George Bush is a reptile alien into Google and get a lot of hits too. When you type a subject into Google, you get exactly what you asked for - you don't necessarily get the truth or even a single verifiable fact. [edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]

Doesn't feel so good now does it, my dear.




[edit on 5-10-2009 by nomorecruelty]

Mod Edit: Changed Code tags to quote tags.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by undo

undo
it's extremely logical. thanks for sharing it.

No problem undo.
I must say I chuckled pretty good when i read that, " missing link" comment
you were quick on that one.

uaoctau

Oh, sorry, I forgot that "he" loves you.

why don't you give up on the Carlin bit.It's not working.
Besides he was dead within 24 hrs of that concert.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by randyvs]

As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.

This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument and claimed: "Ya but that isn't evolution....that's abiogenesis.....that's completely different".

And they did the same with cosmology...which is a big ta-do about the evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, etc.

Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.


So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.

If you think there is. Bring it on.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Eh, because *you* said that getting info from Google isn't a "peer reviewed academic journal".
Doesn't feel so good now does it, my dear.

No - getting unsubstantiated Christian editorials from Google isn't sufficient. There isn't a biology classroom in this country that doesn't teach its students about DNA or elemental composition of carbon-based life. If you would like to debate specific points, I can pull up articles. I am not going to pull up a journal article about the composition of water or how many electrons there are in a carbon atom because no one would publish such an article on an elementary topic.

You failed to rebut my comment about all forms of life containing the same basic building blocks. In short, you were wrong. Now, you're playing a game of let's see if I can dance around the issue.

I think evolutionists main goal is to toss enough doubt, no matter if it makes sense or not, into the creation fact - that it will cause people not to believe in God.

That is my assumption of it.

Because evolution has been debunked and proven false for decades now - but I guess they feel that it's all they have to cling to.

Sad.

Originally posted by John Matrix
So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.

If you think there is. Bring it on.

Once again. I am not going to repeat myself - this thread is approaching 20 pages now. This has already been discussed. Please read the thread.

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Eh, because *you* said that getting info from Google isn't a "peer reviewed academic journal".
Doesn't feel so good now does it, my dear.

No - getting unsubstantiated Christian editorials from Google isn't sufficient. There isn't a biology classroom in this country that doesn't teach its students about DNA or elemental composition of carbon-based life. If you would like to debate specific points, I can pull up articles. I am not going to pull up a journal article about the composition of water or how many electrons there are in a carbon atom because no one would publish such an article on an elementary topic.

You failed to rebut my comment about all forms of life containing the same basic building blocks. In short, you were wrong. Now, you're playing a game of let's see if I can dance around the issue.

Ah, I see - "Christian" articles are not sufficient - but evolutionist articles are.

Andrew, you need to go find another thread - I think we've all caught on to what you're trying to do.

I have never put anyone on 'ignore' since being on ATS - but I'm real close to putting you on it. I just find your diatribe exhausting and useless.

Does anyone else on here notice that the people backing religion and attempting to discredit evolution use a lot of smilies and pepper their responses with 'LOL'?

It speaks volumes actually.

Andrew and Welfhard--I loved reading your responses and views; it's so nice to have real examples, proofs and perspectives explored, as opposed to just throwing a few smiley-faces and LOLs around and using the rebuttal of "whatever, man."

FINAL WARNING

Any further off-topic and/or discussions about your fellow members will result in post removal and/or point penalties and/or post bannings.

Please guys.

Go after the ball - not the player!

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
I think evolutionists main goal is to toss enough doubt, no matter if it makes sense or not, into the creation fact - that it will cause people not to believe in God.
That is my assumption of it.
Because evolution has been debunked and proven false for decades now - but I guess they feel that it's all they have to cling to.
Sad.

My purpose is to convey to you the importance of not accepting anything as fact until it has been supported by evidence. There is no evidence that God exists. I have already proven that evolution is observable in real time by examining bacterial responses to the presence of antibiotics. You would know this if you had actually READ the thread! Just because you don't understand how something works or where something came from, that doesn't automatically mean that it was created by a wizard out of thin air. If you held your own beliefs to the unshakable skepticism in which you hold evolution, you wouldn't believe in God.

Here's an idea: Read the thread!

Do you like to watch CSI? How boring would that show be if every time they were confronted with question, they automatically jumped to the conclusion that an invisible wizard must have intervened in the crime scene somehow? Was he poisoned, shot, stabbed, burned, or instantly killed by God? Does that sound like a rational progression of explanations?

A girl is pregnant. Was she knocked up by some guy or is she a virgin who was given a baby by an invisible wizard?





[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by nomorecruelty

Because evolution has been debunked and proven false for decades now - but I guess they feel that it's all they have to cling to.

Cling to it they do. In a big way.So funny is the the redundant desperate scramble, so typical when their cornered. Hilarious.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by randyvs]

Click here for more information.