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.
Yet another example of someone holding science to a higher standard than they do their Bible.
You usually do respond off task.
What a dishonest thing to do. I have always responded to all of your posts unlike you to mine when you cannot answer.
You dodge most of my scenarios but I'm the liar?
You would not know how to pose a scenario if you took a course. You write stupudity. Stupidity I and others have addresses over and over again which you dismiss without reading or discussion. Why would anyone continue to jump through hoops for such a liar?
Producing evidence providing the age of the topic I think I have done a pretty damn good job. You on the other hand are the one that's failing. Evolution is allegedly going on even today and you can't provide proof that is at least listed as such.
Are you really a science master when you should know it is up to you to produce evidence to support your case?
Well that would be because your ignoring my input. I have stated several times what I believe could have proven diversity.
I remind you this thread is to discuss the diversity we see today without refering to evolution. You have never even attempted this while trolling your nonsense. You are too scared to.
It shouldn't be to hard, as evolution doesn't prove diversity IMO to begin with.
Not only showing your complete ignorance of the subject it should also mean you will only be to happy to remain on topic and describe the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.
I never denied that small changes are probably happening. But the thing you need to realize is that we have no way of knowing weather or not those are normal changes within a species to begin with. IMO for us to have come from apes, at that pace would take trillions of years, and well earth isn't that old so what does that tell you?
Yeah, I suppose it's impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. The younger the fossils, the more similar they are to contemporary humans (and the same applies to all contemporary life). What do you think this indicates?
I think it could indicate that a creator used a lot of recycled parts.
Again, what do you think it indicates?
Again it could be nothing more than a creator, using recycled parts and ideas.
Aquatic species has hip bones. What do you think it indicates? We have tailbones, our genetically closest living cousins also have tailbones. Neither have tails (give or take a freak of nature). What does this indicate?
Well it could prove a lot of different things. From the creationist point of view it could be a creator using recycled ideas.
But what does it indicate?
Well this means you are taking the side that we know everything there is to know, and nothing is left to be learned, and based on that, we must have the answers in front of us. I for one never take this point of view, first of all because its not true but more importantly you set yourself up to stop learning.
Now you are just lying. There's no evidence what so ever supporting anything other than modern synthesis. To the contrary every single observation supports it. In other words, it's very likely true, because there are no other alternatives (apart from magic stuff, but if we go there, then we can say that Batman created man, and that's just as valid hypothesis than any other magic invoking one (e.g. there's the same exact amount of supporting data, none).
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by randyvs
Again I dont care about wrenches this thread is about discussing diversity without refering to evoluiton.
Respectfully if you want to expalin why you think evolution is wrong please use the many threads that welcome it as the topic.
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by HappyBunny
Yet another example of someone holding science to a higher standard than they do their Bible.
I don't believe what I said has anything to do with standards tho Happy.
Why should I address your questions when you never address/read or consider anyones elses? A good percentage of them either drivel or borderline incoherent rants as above shows only too well.
I think your confusing the fact of you usually responding, as being toward the questions. Most of the time your not touching my questions. I'm sure there is a very good reason for it, like you don't have an answer.
Again you have been shown why, explained why these people are not acceptable in science and you refuse to aknowkledge that simple fact.Just as everything else you reject out of hand.
Well that's because you still haven't provided anything that proves them all to be a fake.
The only pattern you could see is the patern on your bib as you dribble onto
I'm starting to see a pattern again where everything is about colins little world, and not reality.
How thick are you? I am not saying. I provided you with the information that shows it was far from a balanced eco system. The shrimp living 20 years cut down to a painful 1 to 3 years in which it consumes itself should even to you be plain it is anything but balanced.
I see, so then what your saying is even though they are calling it a balanced eco system, your saying they are lying.
Yet you run all the same. If it was not worth running from why did you not show how wrong you believed it was?
You have never said anything worth running from.
Just looking at this reminds me of a mechanical schematic that we have today. I find it hard to believe that gears and sprockets can evolve.
Which particular flagellum are you talking about? As I recall, about 10 fundamentally different types of flagella have been discovered so far, and they all have their own evolutionary origins (thou I suppose most of them are related to proton pumps one way or another, I'm not a structural biologist thou so I might be wrong).
Originally posted by itsthetooth
I never denied that small changes are probably happening. But the thing you need to realize is that we have no way of knowing weather or not those are normal changes within a species to begin with. IMO for us to have come from apes, at that pace would take trillions of years, and well earth isn't that old so what does that tell you?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
I think this is just from overlap and they are being very presumptuous.
Ok, to begin with, finding soft tissues in fossils is ridiculously rare. Last time it happened was with a dinosaur bone, and the DNA sequence proved that they were an ancestor of chickens.
www.livescience.com...
The oldest human-connected bone (fossil) found is described here:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Just looking at this reminds me of a mechanical schematic that we have today. I find it hard to believe that gears and sprockets can evolve.
Which particular flagellum are you talking about? As I recall, about 10 fundamentally different types of flagella have been discovered so far, and they all have their own evolutionary origins (thou I suppose most of them are related to proton pumps one way or another, I'm not a structural biologist thou so I might be wrong).
I respond off task? What the hell is that? Are you trying to avoid off topic because you have never once attempted it?
You usually do respond off task.
Again you would not know what a scenario was. Prove me otherwise lay out your scenario for Alien intervention.
You dodge most of my scenarios but I'm the liar?
Despite everyone else on this thread saying that you have done a very poor job and done it in a very dishonest way? Really?
Producing evidence providing the age of the topic I think I have done a pretty damn good job. You on the other hand are the one that's failing. Evolution is allegedly going on even today and you can't provide proof that is at least listed as such.
Telling me you believe you could have proven diversity by saying aliens used spare parts left over from other animals was not explaining diversity it was describing your level of inteligence.
Well that would be because your ignoring my input. I have stated several times what I believe could have proven diversity.
And that tripe is your explanation and you wonder why I do not answer any of your ignorance based replies. Sheese.
It shouldn't be to hard, as evolution doesn't prove diversity IMO to begin with.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
Simple, get ahold of some bones that are say 200,000 years old and test them against our current DNA for differences.
Please explain how one would backtrack through the fossils to witness genetic change?
Well in all honesty, they could be. There is no way to know for sure if those changes they are seeing are from the normal options of the species to begin with. I allready had a long write about this just a few ago. What and who is to say that 5 and 6 feet people are normal and 9 feet people are not? We do, we determine this based on whats common and whats not. My point is just because something is common doesn't not mean its proof of being normal. Whos to say that 10 feet people are actually normal.
This is the last time I'm saying this. WE DO HAVE PROOF! Stop ignoring the human mutation rates that can be measured! Are they just making the numbers up out of thin air in a peer reviewed science experiment?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Please explain how one would backtrack through the fossils to witness genetic change? Simple, get ahold of some bones that are say 200,000 years old and test them against our current DNA for differences.
Well in all honesty, they could be. There is no way to know for sure if those changes they are seeing are from the normal options of the species to begin with. I allready had a long write about this just a few ago. What and who is to say that 5 and 6 feet people are normal and 9 feet people are not? We do, we determine this based on whats common and whats not. My point is just because something is common doesn't not mean its proof of being normal. Whos to say that 10 feet people are actually normal.
This is the last time I'm saying this. WE DO HAVE PROOF! Stop ignoring the human mutation rates that can be measured! Are they just making the numbers up out of thin air in a peer reviewed science experiment?
And why would I want to drop this argument? You can see from what I just wrote that there is a very serious open ended problem here. We are basing it all on assumptions. You can't rely on assumptions.
Originally posted by randyvs
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by randyvs
Again I dont care about wrenches this thread is about discussing diversity without refering to evoluiton.
Respectfully if you want to expalin why you think evolution is wrong please use the many threads that welcome it as the topic.
I don't think you can mention evolution in your title and then chew people out for refering to evolution.
How does that make any sense ? Respectfully.
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by HappyBunny
I understand where you are coming from Happy and agree with what you're saying not as an admission but an observation.
Now apply the same manner of thinking to my ststement and the standards should disappear
Grammer Check.edit on 29-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
That doesn't mean anything. All your saying is throw in another species in between us, but I guess I can understand why your saying that, I just assumed it all along.
Lesson #2, Toothy. The theory of evolution does not say that we came from apes. It says that man and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.
Lesson #3: Not enough change and you sacrifice adaptability.