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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 123
31
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No...all his claims are fiction because he never bothered to back them up with facts and objective evidence

And if something is not backed up by evidence, it's fiction...made up...a "nice story".
You mean in the same way that you are contesting what he has presented. I don't see you coming up with anything that proves him wrong, your just saying hes wrong.


How many times and ways do you need this explained for you to understand enough to stop posting this defence and making yourself look foolish.

No one can contest what he says because until he publishes the evidence to back up his claims there is nothing to contest.

The only reason I can see why Pye refuses to publish is so clueless idiots will then ask science to prove him wrong when their is nothing of substance to prove wrong. What is he scared of?




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I wasn't talking about Pye so just be quiet please?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I wasn't talking about Pye so just be quiet please?


You were talking about similar claims he made...and not once did you or anyone else post objective evidence to back up those claims. So no, I won't be quiet and let you dumb down the people by selling FICTION as truth



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Well, based on some of our reality TV programs I don't blame you for thinking we devolved.
I hear ya. Some of them are pretty sad for sure, which one you watching?


None at all. I do like The Biggest Loser, but if I ever went through that myself I'd have to smack Jillian.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Evolution isn't goal-driven. We adapted a big brain for a reason; what we do with it is up to us, not evolution. We're not the only ones. Chimps have been known to exterminate each other. Spider monkeys. Ants (which have the largest brain in proportion to size).

Again, we're not special in this
Hey I challenge the proportion thing by comparison. Is there a site you found about this?


I thought it was common knowledge, but here you go.

quantumbiologist.wordpress.com...

If you want largest brain weight to body weight ratio, it's dolphins and porpoises.

We are only the third most intelligent species on Earth, after all!




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No...all his claims are fiction because he never bothered to back them up with facts and objective evidence

And if something is not backed up by evidence, it's fiction...made up...a "nice story".
You mean in the same way that you are contesting what he has presented. I don't see you coming up with anything that proves him wrong, your just saying hes wrong.


How many times and ways do you need this explained for you to understand enough to stop posting this defence and making yourself look foolish.

No one can contest what he says because until he publishes the evidence to back up his claims there is nothing to contest.

The only reason I can see why Pye refuses to publish is so clueless idiots will then ask science to prove him wrong when their is nothing of substance to prove wrong. What is he scared of?


That he's wrong, and he probably knows anything he publishes won't make it past peer review.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Have you ever thought about just sending him an email and asking?

Have you? I'm not the one claiming that it is evidence of creation. Without the proof and lab experiments he's got nothing.




So I said it right. It's subjective if you read it wrong. I think your reading it wrong.

No. It is NOT subjective if I read it wrong. It is subjective if it does NOT provide evidence and data that I can verify and examine for myself or others.




What you mean to say is no one has proven him wrong or taken the steps to challenge his findings. And again, your welcome to anytime. Everyone wants to squak there box about how he is wrong but no one is providing any proof of it.

LOL. You can't prove something wrong if the person claiming it won't even provide the evidence and lab analysis. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? The dude hasn't provided ANY tangible evidence to examine. He's making claims, none of which have been backed up at this point. This means there is NO objective evidence. Say it with me. NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Again, burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person saying they are wrong or have no evidence. Pye's claims are just as valid as me claiming the universe was created by the all powerful flying spaghetti monster.



What I mean is I doubt if that alone determins authenticity, or the lack of. In other words just because its not peer reviewed doesn't automatically mean its false.

Obviously that alone doesn't determine it, the evidence itself and the experiments do. In science, however if you want your work or theories considered they need to be peer reviewed for authenticity and validity. Any Joe can write a paper or article making claims about something, but to take it seriously in the scientific community it needs to be verified. There's very good reason for this.
edit on 14-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





How many times and ways do you need this explained for you to understand enough to stop posting this defence and making yourself look foolish.

No one can contest what he says because until he publishes the evidence to back up his claims there is nothing to contest.

The only reason I can see why Pye refuses to publish is so clueless idiots will then ask science to prove him wrong when their is nothing of substance to prove wrong. What is he scared of?
But how can you say his work isn't published when your complaining about the work to begin with? In addition to this your welcome to do the testing yourself and see what you come up with.
And for the 5th time, just because he didn't give any references doesn't mean there are any.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





I thought it was common knowledge, but here you go.

quantumbiologist.wordpress.com...

If you want largest brain weight to body weight ratio, it's dolphins and porpoises.

We are only the third most intelligent species on Earth, after all!
thank you.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Have you? I'm not the one claiming that it is evidence of creation. Without the proof and lab experiments he's got nothing.
His findings seem very fitting so I have no reason to question them.




No. It is NOT subjective if I read it wrong. It is subjective if it does NOT provide evidence and data that I can verify and examine for myself or others.
Who ever said you cant verify and examine the findings yourself. He isn't talking about something you cant do yourself.




LOL. You can't prove something wrong if the person claiming it won't even provide the evidence and lab analysis. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? The dude hasn't provided ANY tangible evidence to examine. He's making claims, none of which have been backed up at this point. This means there is NO objective evidence. Say it with me. NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Again, burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person saying they are wrong or have no evidence. Pye's claims are just as valid as me claiming the universe was created by the all powerful flying spaghetti monster.
Sure its objective evidence, your welcome to do it yourself and see what you come up with. and if your saying he never provided lab results then what exactly are you contesting here?



Obviously that alone doesn't determine it, the evidence itself and the experiments do. In science, however if you want your work or theories considered they need to be peer reviewed for authenticity and validity. Any Joe can write a paper or article making claims about something, but to take it seriously in the scientific community it needs to be verified. There's very good reason for this.
Well you havent provided the lab work yourself to contest it so there is no room to argue.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





But how can you say his work isn't published when your complaining about the work to begin with? In addition to this your welcome to do the testing yourself and see what you come up with.


Until he provides objective evidence, he's merely stating fiction. And that's a FACT.

You can of course believe in it, just like you can believe in the bible...but the fact remains, there's ZERO credible, objective evidence backing up any of the claims



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The thing about this is it doesn't even matter what can be proved or not. What matters is, if it is wrong.
So forget proving its wrong when it can't be proved right.

Mr. X


I wasn't talking about Pye so just be quiet please?


At least," be quiet please " isn't anything like shut the hell up. Much more pleasant.

edit on 14-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





How many times and ways do you need this explained for you to understand enough to stop posting this defence and making yourself look foolish.

No one can contest what he says because until he publishes the evidence to back up his claims there is nothing to contest.

The only reason I can see why Pye refuses to publish is so clueless idiots will then ask science to prove him wrong when their is nothing of substance to prove wrong. What is he scared of?
But how can you say his work isn't published when your complaining about the work to begin with? In addition to this your welcome to do the testing yourself and see what you come up with.
And for the 5th time, just because he didn't give any references doesn't mean there are any.
Published does not mean a U-Tube video or a penny dreadful book peddling fiction. Published means setting out the evidence/experimental findings and any other information needed for others to verify what is being described as true. Pye does not do this and you do not ask why, WHY!!!

You cannot test what does not exist and until he makes the evidence available (remember publish) there is nothing to test.

If only this was just the 5th time. Until he provdes the evidence there is only a story you are expected to take on good faith. You do because it fits your belief. I do not because until he provides evidence its a story and I have read better.

The scientific method is in place to stop people like Pye making false claims and prevent people like you being misled and misinformed. The internet in this case is being misused because Pye is attempting, as far as I can see to skate around it to sell his books.

Look if nothing else consider this. If you had information that would blow modern science apart and change the thinking of the planet would you hesitate to make this information available? (Thats the evidence not the book and the video).

I would not. Why doesnt he if he indeed has proof?

Please do not let me down by saying he has, please dont. JUST DONT!



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I've actually found a journal article that discusses exactly what we're discussing in regards to Pye. It talks about how ufology uses shards of scientific rhetoric as a means to gain legitimacy. There's even a section of the article directly discussing Pye. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to see the full text.

The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I don't know why I bother wasting my time. You can't grasp the very simple concept of what counts as objective evidence.


Originally posted by itsthetooth
His findings seem very fitting so I have no reason to question them.

It "seems to fit". That's a GREAT argument and totally based on science. Evolution doesn't seem to fit. It fits perfectly, but you ignore it.



Who ever said you cant verify and examine the findings yourself. He isn't talking about something you cant do yourself.

Pye has NOT PUBLISHED ANY of his lab work. Again, if he published the actual research papers and lab analysis please provide it. If not, you have no reason to assume he's right or to consider it objective evidence.



Sure its objective evidence, your welcome to do it yourself and see what you come up with. and if your saying he never provided lab results then what exactly are you contesting here?

I do not have the access to the skull or to his scientific lab analysis of it. Can you provide that for me so I can review this OBJECTIVE evidence? If you can't it is NOT objective. Please learn the difference, you keep repeating the same nonsensical claims over and over again.



Well you havent provided the lab work yourself to contest it so there is no room to argue


LOL. You are a lost cause. Neither of us can provide the lab work, therefor it is not objective evidence because as of now it DOES NOT EXIST. This is your last chance, provide the evidence so I can examine it. If you do not, you have nothing to validate Pye's claims. If you repeat the same tired old nonsense again, I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You clearly either have difficulties understanding the English language or you are being intentionally dishonest and ignoring everything that people are saying. If its the first case, it explains a lot. If it's the latter, then shame on you.
edit on 14-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Let's not forget that Pye is also the one in possession of the skull. So, even if one of us had the means to test it we wouldn't be able to.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
The thing about this is it doesn't even matter what can be proved or not. What matters is, if it is wrong.
So forget proving its wrong when it can't be proved right.

Mr. X


I wasn't talking about Pye so just be quiet please?


At least," be quiet please " isn't anything like shut the hell up. Much more pleasant.

edit on 14-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Well, he prevents people from proving him wrong because he makes random claims and won't provide data as backup. That's akin to me claiming a giant unicorn farted the universe into existence, and I have proof...but won't share it


But agreed, the "be quiet please" IS nicer than what I'm used to, you should see some of the PMs I got over the years. The word "satan" was even mentioned more than once



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Until he provides objective evidence, he's merely stating fiction. And that's a FACT.
Well thats simply how you personally choose to accept and not accept things. I myself choose to base the acceptance on several other factors.

First is weather or not he can be held as a credible source.
I haven't been exposed to anything that says anyone has had any problems with him. The only thing I have gotten is people on here complaining that he didn't render his sources. Of course those people are making an assumption he has any, and they are also making an assumption that he should, when he might not be able to.

Second is how credible the information sounds. Seeing how it fits our health history, I would say its looking pretty dam straight.

Third is if anyone else can do the same test to contest this, which they can. So when you guys get all pissy about the results, do your own tests and prove him wrong. There is no one that says you can't, your just choosing not to which is your fault and your trying to throw it back on Pye. In other words you want Pye to do YOUR work for you.





You can of course believe in it, just like you can believe in the bible...but the fact remains, there's ZERO credible, objective evidence backing up any of the claims
You can of course not believe in it while there is no evidence to prove it wrong at this point either.

With as much as choose to not believe in, I'm curious how it is that you ever got to where you allowed yourself to believe in evolution because its full of holes. Most recently I posted questions on how is it that we evolve into something else and are expected to have something to eat? Never got an answer on that one from anyone.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well thats simply how you personally choose to accept and not accept things. I myself choose to base the acceptance on several other factors.


Well, if you don't care about objective evidence and facts, then that's your right. It's not logical, or reasonable...but it IS your right to prefer fiction over fact





First is weather or not he can be held as a credible source.


Which, if he's witholding objective evidence and data to support his claims, clearly ISN'T.




I haven't been exposed to anything that says anyone has had any problems with him. The only thing I have gotten is people on here complaining that he didn't render his sources. Of course those people are making an assumption he has any, and they are also making an assumption that he should, when he might not be able to.


It doesn't matter if he has data or not, as long as he doesn't share it, his claims are pure fiction.




Second is how credible the information sounds. Seeing how it fits our health history, I would say its looking pretty dam straight.


Well, given that every objective study contradicts his claims, and that one of the top neural scientists perfectly explained the shape of the skull...you can't really call his claims "damn straight". They look like complete and utter nonsense





Third is if anyone else can do the same test to contest this, which they can. So when you guys get all pissy about the results, do your own tests and prove him wrong. There is no one that says you can't, your just choosing not to which is your fault and your trying to throw it back on Pye. In other words you want Pye to do YOUR work for you.


And every single examination other than by Pye contradicts his claims


He doesn't even permit peer reviews





You can of course not believe in it while there is no evidence to prove it wrong at this point either.

With as much as choose to not believe in, I'm curious how it is that you ever got to where you allowed yourself to believe in evolution because its full of holes. Most recently I posted questions on how is it that we evolve into something else and are expected to have something to eat? Never got an answer on that one from anyone.


Well, the thread title is "Can you prove evolution wrong?". You clearly haven't done so yet, so enlighten us please, what holes are you talking about


And what do you mean "evolve into something and then have something to eat"???? It doesn't happen overnight. It's not as if a fish goes to sleep and suddenly wakes up as an iguana going "damn, what the hell should I eat??". Evolution mostly takes a very long time, and of course your feeding habits and food sources change as well. It's constant adaption.

Macro evolution is nothing but a whole string of micro evolutions over a long period of time. Take the giraffe for example. Its ancestor had a short neck, and every generation that neck got a bit longer. After thousands of years, you get a giraffe if the neck grows by a few centimetres every 100 generations or so. And guess what, that giraffe looks very different than its ancestors. The same goes for humans, and both the fossil record and genetics fully back it up

edit on 14-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You mean the health history which shows that up until about 10,000 years ago, humans led healthy lives, and that agriculture is what spurred an unhealthy diet, but allowed us to stay in one place long enough to develop cities and infrastructures and advanced technology? That health history?

If you know of another, please, enlighten me.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join