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: 228
31
<< 225  226  227    229  230  231 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Sitchin's entire "theory" rests on the existence of planet called Nibiru. His entire basis for believing in a planet called Nibiru is because of Cylinder Seal VA 243. He claims that this depicts our solar system but with twelve planets. In truth not only does this seal not depict twelve planets, it doesn't even depict the solar system. This means that his entire reasoning behind believing in Nibiru is false and as a result his entire theory falls apart. That's hardly nitpicking. I also find it disingenuous for you to keep throwing Sitchin's name around as support for your claims and then admit that you're not really familiar with his work. You're just like all the other New Age sheeple who buy into something simply because it's "fringe" without actually doing any real investigation.




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 



I didnt realise...you can get a science masters from the university of wikipedia.

Here I have been, slaving away for all these years, reading text books, peers reviewed papers, performing research..and the answer was just a few clicks away..lol

Do you think the wikipedia university will ever replace the open university.

I know you shouldnt laugh at your own jokes...but the university of wikipedia...lmao...I now have new insult for stupid people.



Well Wiki may not be the most reliable source for anything, but it is the quickest easiest and most reliable for getting a quick answer.


Have you thought about accuracy over speed. Check more than one resource. The biggest problem with wiki is the fact that anyone can edit it. I could spend all night finding every reference to biblical matters and add "this is a work of fiction, any resembelence..."etc


My skills are not that well and even I have found some problems with Wiki, which is pretty sad.


We agree!


BTW, using the example of Wiki not ever being able to replace the university, you have to remember that everyone learns easier by different methods, so in a sense, you could be wrong.


Not something I am likley to forget (teacher an all !!! this has been raised previously!) but the methods of learning should not divert into the realms of fantasy. I often use parables, metaphors and similie, but i take measures to ensure that my students understand the difference between a story and a reality.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well I never said that I'm smarter than you colin, but does the idea make you cringe?

I never mentioned an IQ pi$$ing contest between me and you. You are clearly under the impression that you are thinking deeper than even god.



OK, heres a competion I'm ready to enter...lol

And also one I'm willing to put m oney on...any takers.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Apologies for being off topic, but on subject...sort of...

Students in an advanced Biology class were taking their mid-term test. The last question was, 'Name seven advantages of Mother's Milk,' worth 70 points or none at all.
One student, in particular, was hard put to think of seven advantages. He wrote:
1.) It is perfect formula for the child.
2.) It provides immunity against several diseases.
3.) It is always the right temperature.
4.) It is inexpensive.
5.) It bonds the child to mother, and vice versa.
6.) It is always available as needed.

And then, the student was stuck. Finally, in desperation, just before the bell rang indicating the end of the test, he wrote..

7.) It comes in 2 attractive reusable containers.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



don't know enough about Sitchens work, to make any comments about that. I will say however that I did read some debunking about him that was total nit picking. Just horrible. God forbid, none of the rest of his work could be right on. I think your judging a book by its cover. My mom used to have this saying. Life is like a burrito, you have to eat everything in the middle even if you don't like it. BTW it was long before life was a box of chocolates.
Ah but it still begs the question. Did you go for a long run shortly after she said life was like a box of chocolates?


don't know enough about Sitchens work, to make any comments about that.
I reall think this sums you up. You refer to his work as proof constantly and here you admit you do not know enough about his work to comment. How mad is that?


edit on 13-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Your cries of "profiling" are a sad and immature attempt to reject the notion that you need to be held accountable for the things you say and the claims you make.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





You won't believing anything, not even hard scientific evidence that I've posted.


Of course not, wouldn't that be like you asking me to take your word for it? Are you noted for being the Osami of worldly information?




I'm just glad your beliefs don't count as reality.


Well we all pretty much live in a "if I can see it or touch it world, then it must not be real." I step out of the box a tad and give a little thought to the possibility that I MIGHT not know everything, and that I MAY not have seen and touched everything.




If so, we'd be in big trouble and would probably still be in the dark ages.


Well then I must be ahead of you in leaps and bounds.




I proved that evolution HAS BEEN OBSERVED in humans and other hominid species.


YOU, haven't proven anything Dr, Barcs. You have presented some links which I'm sorry to say all are introduced in plain english as hypotheticle and postulated theorys. I don't know why everyone keeps missing this important fact. Is it that you guys don't read the links you send me to, or do you conveniently skip over this introductory sentance?

Ok, so your claiming that humans have now been observed changing into another species. I want to know, who observed this, when, and what they were observed changing into. As well as what the name of the new species is.




You admitted you were wrong and changed the subject to speciation, and then surprise! 50 pages later you post the same lie you started with. Dishonesty is worse than ignorance, because usually in the event of ignorance, the person legitimately does not know he is wrong. In this case, you've been proven wrong, but won't accept any objective evidence that counters your world view. You can't just ignore objective scientific evidence because you feel like it.


I don't know what your talking about in this section, but can disagree with you based on the fact that every example I have been able to produce that squashes the possibility of evolution has NEVER been met with an acceptable answer. It just proves that I'm correct, and your being incredulous.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Like I said, its just what I watched.

Which you seem more than happy to regurgitate without thinking about what you watched in a critical fashion or trying to check the claims made by it with other sources.
edit on 13/2/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Sitchin's entire "theory" rests on the existence of planet called Nibiru. His entire basis for believing in a planet called Nibiru is because of Cylinder Seal VA 243. He claims that this depicts our solar system but with twelve planets. In truth not only does this seal not depict twelve planets, it doesn't even depict the solar system. This means that his entire reasoning behind believing in Nibiru is false and as a result his entire theory falls apart. That's hardly nitpicking. I also find it disingenuous for you to keep throwing Sitchin's name around as support for your claims and then admit that you're not really familiar with his work. You're just like all the other New Age sheeple who buy into something simply because it's "fringe" without actually doing any real investigation.
Well I do agree with Sitchen in that he too believes in intervention. I agree with the reasons as to why this happened to us as well, as there are concurring sections in the bible. Figure that one out. I have actually heard about the descrepency with the planets, and it sounds more like we are looking at the wrong system to begin with. I'm not a rocket scientist so I can't defend or otherwise comment about it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I don't know enough about Sitchens work, to make any comments about that.

Yet you cite his work constantly as supporting yours, as "pointing in the exact same direction" as Pye and Von Daniken and the Bible! So you haven't even researched one of your key sources enough to comment on what is the key image on the key seal that he uses as the core concept of his entire argument.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Have you thought about accuracy over speed. Check more than one resource. The biggest problem with wiki is the fact that anyone can edit it. I could spend all night finding every reference to biblical matters and add "this is a work of fiction, any resembelence..."etc
Which is the biggest concearn I always hear about, and yess I"m aware of the problem, but I have yet to see one defaced.




BTW, using the example of Wiki not ever being able to replace the university, you have to remember that everyone learns easier by different methods, so in a sense, you could be wrong.


Not something I am likley to forget (teacher an all !!! this has been raised previously!) but the methods of learning should not divert into the realms of fantasy. I often use parables, metaphors and similie, but i take measures to ensure that my students understand the difference between a story and a reality.


The problem with using that logic in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter. Now on the other hand with evolution, there is no excuse for us not having proof. And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I will say however that I did read some debunking about him that was total nit picking.

I love the constant cries of "nitpicking" from the people who don't seem to understand how science works. Here's a hint -- if your facts are wrong, then your hypothesis based on those facts is wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





OK, heres a competion I'm ready to enter...lol

And also one I'm willing to put m oney on...any takers.
Are you going to place your money on the guy that thinks birds inhabiting homes is a human bird relationship?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well we all pretty much live in a "if I can see it or touch it world, then it must not be real." I step out of the box a tad and give a little thought to the possibility that I MIGHT not know everything, and that I MAY not have seen and touched everything.
What on earth does the drivel above even mean? 'If I can see it, touch it world then it must not be real'

The rest creeps me out as you paint the picture of you as Freddy Cruger type. Touchin everything. OOooh (shudders)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The problem with using that logic in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter.

Which is the very definition of religion. You have succeeded in creating a religion for yourself, and that is all you have accomplished.


Now on the other hand with evolution, there is no excuse for us not having proof. And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Then, yet again, you've heard incorrectly or only heard what you wanted to hear. It's part of the science education standards for every state in the US.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


Have you thought about accuracy over speed. Check more than one resource. The biggest problem with wiki is the fact that anyone can edit it. I could spend all night finding every reference to biblical matters and add "this is a work of fiction, any resembelence..."etc


You

Which is the biggest concearn I always hear about, and yess I"m aware of the problem, but I have yet to see one defaced.


No, you have yet to question what you read on wiki and cross reference it with any other source


You


BTW, using the example of Wiki not ever being able to replace the university, you have to remember that everyone learns easier by different methods, so in a sense, you could be wrong.


Me

Not something I am likley to forget (teacher an all !!! this has been raised previously!) but the methods of learning should not divert into the realms of fantasy. I often use parables, metaphors and similie, but i take measures to ensure that my students understand the difference between a story and a reality.


You

The problem with using that logic in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter. Now on the other hand with evolution, there is no excuse for us not having proof. And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.


You heard wrong!

And for anybody else who cares, you just stated "in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter"

In this statement, tooth has admitted that statistics, and evidence will be ignored because of the subject matter. I dont even know where to begin....L.M.A.O



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
is the word twat, censored on here?

second line



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
is the word twat, censored on here?

second line
No because is it shothand for Tooths World According to Tooth. Quite acceptable IMO The word that is
edit on 13-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by idmonster
is the word twat, censored on here?

second line
No because is it shothand for Tooths World According to Tooth. Quite acceptable IMO The word that is
edit on 13-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


Ahh! so it should more accuratley be transcribed as T.W.A.T. Apologies for any offense



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think we just won the lottery, but now we're arguing that theres no way, because the chances are just too small, so now we're trying to figure out, how it got cheated, when in fact, we just won fair and square.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 225  226  227    229  230  231 >>

log in

join