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: 173
31
<< 170  171  172    174  175  176 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Well I figured

You should pay more attention to your sources before you go about "figuring" things.


a link with the time showing the darwin book open would have been good enough.

Except the video you linked to not only doesn't show "the darwin book" (more on that in a moment) but it never even mentions the name Darwin. So, no, it's not good enough. You're just continuing to prove that you don't even research or really pay attention to your own sources.
It looked obvious to me.




... the darwin book ...

Uh, which Darwin book are you talking about? You are aware that he published a few dozen during his lifetime, right? And they're all in the public domain, so finding them and vetting your source that you keep paraphrasing should be trivial for someone as skilled in the fine art of investigation as you are, no?

I'll continue waiting for you to show some intellectual integrity and provide the original quote by Darwin and it's source.
Well like I said his book is open, showing title, page and chapter on one side and the quote on the left. Good enough for me.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Here is the video you linked to:


Where is "the darwin book" or a mention of Darwin in this video?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


To be fair it was the IDers and Creationists that started the comparison of their philosophies to evolution. They're the ones that argued ID and Creationism should be taught in public schools as alternatives to evolution. They are also the ones that base the majority of their arguments by trying to find holes in evolution. I will also point out that evolution is relevant to Creationism. At least traditional Creationism which states that God created everything as is. So, while it is primarily attempting to explain the origin of life, at the same time it is attempting to explain the origin of biodiversity in a way that completely contradicts evolution.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 



No, its part 4 that auto played from the link.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Well when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye are all saying the same thing, I don't think its a leap of faith. Evolution with out proof is a leap of faith, a giant one.


So what makes these sources more valid than the numerous scientists that say the same thing? That thing being that evolution is fact. You have listed four sources, each of which has shown to be wrong on multiple counts. I on the other hand could list countless sources that support evolution that haven't been discredited by any peer-reviewed papers. I admit that some of these might not be applicable, but the majority of them should be. So, if being right is based on the number of sources saying the same thing I think evolution wins
The only difference is mine are all gearing toward intervention without realizing it. Yours are all about evolution to begin with.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Are you really as dense as you are appearing?

Ask yourself if a person makes a decission to travel by a less poluting form of transport for that reason rather than a private vehicle would that same person then litter his enviroment for no other reason than lazyness?

This sort of nonsense only devalues your input into this discussion even lower than it is now. If you cannot work out the direct answer to you question then I believe you have been shown to be wrong yet again as you have no ability to stand back and see the bigger picture. In fact your are blinded by your fantasy.
I didn't say for laziness, I said because you allready felt you were doing your part.

How do you know what I felt? You do like coming to conclusions without any evidence to back it up dont you.

Your conclusion, which also seems a common trait with you makes no sense. I choose not to pollute my enviroment with car exhaust and then pollute it with discarded waste. How on earth did you work that one out and think it was reasonable?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


How do they not realize it? With the exception of the Bible (which is not about alien intervention, but that's another topic) they come right out and say it. They started with their conclusion and looked for evidence to support it. On the other hand, the way science works is that they look at the data and then let that data lead them to a conclusion. One of these methods is prone to biases and errors. It is not the latter.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

OK, then, here's part four of the forty-eight video series you've linked to:


You're getting warmer. This one actually mentions Darwin, although only in the context of creating a strawman argument to try and knock down.

So can you provide the quote you keep paraphrasing with a source or not?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's a good thing these are not normal in our drinking water.
Yes there are plenty of natural things that pollute water and they are dangerous to man and animal alike which is one of the points I have been trying to get over to you for many pages.


Your strawman argument of redundant tools caused from more sophisticated needs is pure strawman.
Your very wrong again. You are the one who for some unknown reason is now talking about redundant tools. Your first comment was about using tools to make tools. That is what I answered and you changed the goalpost without addressing my reply.


Actually they have provided tons of proof and you still choose to not believe, I think thats called being incredulous.
I am at a loss to understand how you cannot comprehend what is proof and what is heresay. You have had the differance explained to you so many times. Lets try one more time in a simple form but I know I will regret this.

I tell you I have a football. I tell you it is five years old. Until you see the ball you do not know for a fact I have one. Until I show you the sale reciept you cannot confirm it is five years old. The ball and the reciept are evidence. Me telling you I have one is not.

Pye, Sitchin and the bible are telling you they have a ball but dont show you it or the reciept. So all you have is faith. Faith is NOT acceptable proof in science. The only one being incredulous here is you and your refusal to understand what is and what is not evidence.


There is no such species that depends on man to survive from birth, and if you gave me any, I didn't get them.
Here you go again, the same old dance. You never asked that so that was not what the list I gave answered. I will quote you again.


Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,
That is a very different question than the one you are now putting forward to try to say I never answered you when I plainly did. You just cannot accept you were shown wrong again and now I have shown you are wrong here too.


Well then you need to contact the medical community and let they know they have it all wrong and you have it all right.
No. You need to explain why the bushman lives in a way you maintain cannot happen. Again you are dancing around the example because you cannot explain it without major damage to the nonsense you are promoting.


I guess I missed that one too.
A common response from you when you have no answer. You acuse me of being incredulous?


Well seeing how your the one that believes in theorys that have no proof to back them up, I guess you might say we both aren't on the same page.
Well havent you come a long way. You show me yours and I will show you mine.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
On diversity and fossils:


What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.

Mayr, E., 1982
The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 524



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
itsthetooth,
Is this the quote your looking for?

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." ~ Charles Darwin



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 

Before going to bed I would like to put a thought for you to ponder on.

During times of comparative stability all niches are occupied by established animals. The evolution that takes place is gradual and contained within the species. A newly emerging species would have little to no chance to get established because it is a late runner as it were. All the beds are taken

At times of extinction level events where numbers have been drastically reduced many vacant and newly formed niches accelerate evolution. These vacant and new opportunities with little to no competition allows speciation to take place. This can be seen in the fossil records. The flip from dinosaur to mammal domination after the extinction level event as an example.

Given that numbers would be low and change fast (relatively) I do not find it unbelievable not to have a fossil for every single change.



edit on 9-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





It's a good thing these are not normal in our drinking water.

Yes there are plenty of natural things that pollute water and they are dangerous to man and animal alike which is one of the points I have been trying to get over to you for many pages.
Do you really think humans were suppose to drink nasty water?




Your very wrong again. You are the one who for some unknown reason is now talking about redundant tools. Your first comment was about using tools to make tools. That is what I answered and you changed the goalpost without addressing my reply.
Well thats because we were also talking about monkeys making tools.




I am at a loss to understand how you cannot comprehend what is proof and what is heresay. You have had the differance explained to you so many times. Lets try one more time in a simple form but I know I will regret this.

I tell you I have a football. I tell you it is five years old. Until you see the ball you do not know for a fact I have one. Until I show you the sale reciept you cannot confirm it is five years old. The ball and the reciept are evidence. Me telling you I have one is not.
Exactly so how is it with evolutionism, you are able to believe in something you can't see?




Pye, Sitchin and the bible are telling you they have a ball but dont show you it or the reciept. So all you have is faith. Faith is NOT acceptable proof in science. The only one being incredulous here is you and your refusal to understand what is and what is not evidence.
Wrong, Pye has tampered DNA,which in itself is intervention and additionally matches parts of the bible Sitchen has DNA work in history and proof of intervention. Von Daniken has intervention, and proof of advanced technology in biblical times. The proof is on the table, some of which can't be seen. Unlike evolutionism, you have no excuse for not having proof. All life that has evolved as you understand it, is from here, so where are the bones? Where is your proof? So many things are suppose to be evolving, why do we not see it going on either in the early, mid or final stages? Why do we not have intermediate species? Why does other life also leave no bones of intermediate species or any type of trangression? Simple, its not happening.




There is no such species that depends on man to survive from birth, and if you gave me any, I didn't get them.

Here you go again, the same old dance. You never asked that so that was not what the list I gave answered. I will quote you again
No its my fault, I figured you were smart enough to understand the background of the question.




Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,

That is a very different question than the one you are now putting forward to try to say I never answered you when I plainly did. You just cannot accept you were shown wrong again and now I have shown you are wrong here too.
I look at it more like you doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.




Well then you need to contact the medical community and let they know they have it all wrong and you have it all right.

No. You need to explain why the bushman lives in a way you maintain cannot happen. Again you are dancing around the example because you cannot explain it without major damage to the nonsense you are promoting.
The only reason the bushman makes it in fair terms is because he does not have contact with large amounts of other people. People are sickness carriers.




I guess I missed that one too.

A common response from you when you have no answer. You acuse me of being incredulous?
Thats not what incredulous means.




Well seeing how your the one that believes in theorys that have no proof to back them up, I guess you might say we both aren't on the same page.

Well havent you come a long way. You show me yours and I will show you mine.
At least there are good reasons why some proof is lacking on my part, whats your excuse?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Attempting to attack or discredit Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with modern day evolutionary theory. Remember in the other thread I mentioned that Darwinism is bad terminology, because it creates a strawman, which is exactly what everybody's working with here. It doesn't matter if Darwin was the biggest scumbag on the planet, his theory ended up being correct, and has been thoroughly backed up by modern biology, genetics, fossil finds, and is applied in medicine today.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Do you really think humans were suppose to drink nasty water?
You are a dead loss arent you.



Well thats because we were also talking about monkeys making tools.
No we was not. You brought that out later. You are not going to answer any questions that give you pause for thought are you. So why bother.



Exactly so how is it with evolutionism, you are able to believe in something you can't see?
I can. I can also read the evidence to confirm what I see. I knew giving you an example would be a waste of time. Tell me again what is it that pye, sitchen and the bible offer. Facts or hersay?


Wrong, Pye has tampered DNA,which in itself is intervention and additionally matches parts of the bible Sitchen has DNA work in history and proof of intervention. Von Daniken has intervention, and proof of advanced technology in biblical times. The proof is on the table, some of which can't be seen. Unlike evolutionism, you have no excuse for not having proof. All life that has evolved as you understand it, is from here, so where are the bones? Where is your proof? So many things are suppose to be evolving, why do we not see it going on either in the early, mid or final stages? Why do we not have intermediate species? Why does other life also leave no bones of intermediate species or any type of trangression? Simple, its not happening.
Yep your wood from the neck up.


No its my fault, I figured you were smart enough to understand the background of the question.
It is your fault. You are a liar and a fraud. Thats a choice you have made.


I look at it more like you doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.
See above. You refuse to debate on any level. Your a waste of time pal.


The only reason the bushman makes it in fair terms is because he does not have contact with large amounts of other people. People are sickness carriers.
A great example. You have not addressed how the bushman survives despite all the nonsense you spout that if true would mean they cannot. Your argument is bankrupt as is your reputation.


Thats not what incredulous means.
What this, you know the meaning of something? surely not.


At least there are good reasons why some proof is lacking on my part, whats your excuse?
I know what those good reasons are. You have no proof to offer at all. my proof start from page one of this thread and work your way forward but I would stop at the point you joined it as there is nothing new past your first post.

Dont bother replying. I have had my fill of your nonsense. You have become an old joke. You simply are not funny anymore.
edit on 9-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Inthetooth,

Or is this there quote your looking for?

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."~ Charles Darwin



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





Inthetooth,

Or is this there quote your looking for?

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."~ Charles Darwin
No thats not it, but still a good one. Sounds like reporduction.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Attempting to attack or discredit Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with modern day evolutionary theory. Remember in the other thread I mentioned that Darwinism is bad terminology, because it creates a strawman, which is exactly what everybody's working with here. It doesn't matter if Darwin was the biggest scumbag on the planet, his theory ended up being correct, and has been thoroughly backed up by modern biology, genetics, fossil finds, and is applied in medicine today.
What year, and with what evidence did this happen?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Can someone, anyone please tell me about one thing about evolution that has actually been witnessed, and has also been recreated in a lab.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium
 

Before going to bed I would like to put a thought for you to ponder on.

During times of comparative stability all niches are occupied by established animals. The evolution that takes place is gradual and contained within the species. A newly emerging species would have little to no chance to get established because it is a late runner as it were. All the beds are taken

At times of extinction level events where numbers have been drastically reduced many vacant and newly formed niches accelerate evolution. These vacant and new opportunities with little to no competition allows speciation to take place. This can be seen in the fossil records. The flip from dinosaur to mammal domination after the extinction level event as an example.

Given that numbers would be low and change fast (relatively) I do not find it unbelievable not to have a fossil for every single change.

edit on 9-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

I can understand the concept of what you are saying, but there is no evidence for this.
Yes mammals took over when dinosaurs became extinct, and yes the fossil records shows that some animals adapted to the point they became a different species but not that they morphed into an entirely new group of animals.
Yes new species can be found as one ascends the strata.
However, speciation within basic kinds is different from the introduction of new kinds, and evolution requires a dizzying array of basic new kinds. The origination of a new form has never been documented in the modern world of scientific observation, while perhaps several species every day go extinct. The opposite of evolution occurs today, and fossils show that the opposite of evolution also occurred in the past.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 170  171  172    174  175  176 >>

log in

join