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: 265
31
<< 262  263  264    266  267  268 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
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.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What a dishonest thing to do. I have always responded to all of your posts unlike you to mine when you cannot answer.
You usually do respond off task.




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?
You dodge most of my scenarios but I'm the liar?




Are you really a science master when you should know it is up to you to produce evidence to support your case?
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.




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.
Well that would be because your ignoring my input. I have stated several times what I believe could have proven diversity.




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.
It shouldn't be to hard, as evolution doesn't prove diversity IMO to begin with.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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 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?

There is no way to prove/disprove what is considered an allowable change within a species. We have set these standards based on what we considered to be normal, and sorry but that just doesn't cut it in science.




Again, what do you think it indicates?
I think it could indicate that a creator used a lot of recycled parts.




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?

Again it could be nothing more than a creator, using recycled parts and ideas.




But what does it indicate?
Well it could prove a lot of different things. From the creationist point of view it could be a creator using recycled ideas.



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).
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.

I believe there is something else out there, that is able to create life by snapping its fingers, something we haven't even began to understand, much less do we know about..

For all we know there could be a giant celestial squid out in space that poops out life and planets. All hail to Trevor the giant celestial squid.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

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.


But it does, Randy. Why should creationists point out the issues with evolution (and we know it's not perfect, but it IS the best thing going), yet the Bible is considered unimpeachable as a source and can't be questioned?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
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.


Well that's because you still haven't provided anything that proves them all to be a fake.
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.


I'm starting to see a pattern again where everything is about colins little world, and not reality.
The only pattern you could see is the patern on your bib as you dribble onto


I see, so then what your saying is even though they are calling it a balanced eco system, your saying they are lying.
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.

So yes they are lying. Yes they are selling a lie and the shrimp has to suffer because fools like you do not research the product. AND yes you did not read or discuss the information I provided to you again. You will no doubt not correct you dishonesty either.


You have never said anything worth running from.
Yet you run all the same. If it was not worth running from why did you not show how wrong you believed it was?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


www.google.com...:en-US
fficial&channel=s&biw=1280&bih=804&tbm=isch&tbnid=bh0 VYi-5Jjdz8M:&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum&docid=7Bc_IP-sn1KyyM&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Fla gellum_base_diagram_en.svg/350px-Flagellum_base_diagram_en.svg.png&w=350&h=312&ei=sFlOT7CeBKSZiAL4y4G3Cw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=185&vpy=178&dur=164&hovh=2 12&hovw=238&tx=129&ty=117&sig=100105169259111722677&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=155&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0




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).
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.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

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?


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.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





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...
I think this is just from overlap and they are being very presumptuous.


Isn't that just an assumption? What makes you think that?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 




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).
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.


Welcome to the wonderful world of biophysics.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You usually do respond off task.
I respond off task? What the hell is that? Are you trying to avoid off topic because you have never once attempted it?


You dodge most of my scenarios but I'm the liar?
Again you would not know what a scenario was. Prove me otherwise lay out your scenario for Alien intervention.


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.
Despite everyone else on this thread saying that you have done a very poor job and done it in a very dishonest way? Really?


Well that would be because your ignoring my input. I have stated several times what I believe could have proven diversity.
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.

Diversity is all around us. There is nothing more you need to do than look to prove diversity. You were asked to explain it without refering to evolution. You never have and telling me what you believe you could do means nothing at all.


It shouldn't be to hard, as evolution doesn't prove diversity IMO to begin with.
And that tripe is your explanation and you wonder why I do not answer any of your ignorance based replies. Sheese.

So it is not too hard to describe diversity without refering to evolution. Go ahead. DO IT.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.




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?
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.


Look up square cube law and you'll why 10 feet tall people are not normal and never will be.

You can look up "normal distribution" if you want to know what defines "normal".



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.

Um, this has already happened. We have mapped the genome of Neanderthals (archaic homo sapiens) and Denisovans and compared it to ours.




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?
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.

When did I ever claim anything about being normal? Once again you are ignoring the facts and trying to change the subject. Human mutation rates were reviewed by a bunch of other biologists that confirmed the same thing, plus it has been done by more than one group of scientists. Your only argument is that they MIGHT be lying (which is very poor), but yet you don't hold the bible or Pye to the same standards. You have no proof that any scientist lied about mutation rates, once again you just guess and assume that 90% of the scientific community is creating this mega conspiracy to trick people for no apparent reason with nothing to gain.


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.

Because it's proven false. You are basing your entire argument on assumptions. Science is based on facts, but you are still saying the same lies you were saying earlier.

Human mutation rates = stone cold fact and hard proof of evolution happening RIGHT NOW in humans. Any argument against this is based on guesses and not science. If you claim the science is wrong, then do your own investigation and study the rates yourself. When it turns out that humans have no mutations, then you will have a case. Right now you have absolutely nothing.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

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.





In fairness, the thread title wasn't the original title of the thread. The mods changed it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
Please go and read the OP. As already explained the title of the thread was changed by the mods. This thread again is for those that say evolution is wrong to explain diversity without it.

I understand people may jump in and that is why I explain when they do. If you take offence to that there is not much I can do about it is there.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

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)


Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that evolution should be nailed down as fact. No theory can ever be proven absolutely correct, though. It can only be disproven. Every theory, from gravity to relativity, has issues. Yet we don't discard them. We just keep running experiments. We accept them as true because no far no one's ever been able to show they're wrong. It's the same with evolution. Some of the nitty gritty detail may be incorrect because we don't know everything yet, but broadly speaking it's most likely the correct theory.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Alright then, all good Colin. Sorry to disrupt and congradulations on a tremendous thread.

Happy

Yes you get it. I'm saying IMO if evolution were the whole story it wouldn't be a theory.It should be identifiable as
an absolute fact beyond controversy.
edit on 29-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
Peace

To be honest I dont share your view about this being a tremendous thread. Too many pages ago we had a great discussion going with a poster called Quad. He is on the other side of the fence to me but we had a very respectful and interesting discussion from wihich we both learned about the others views

Denying tooths ignorance and dishonesty is not what I had invisaged or hoped for.

edit on 29-2-2012 by colin42 because: correction



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
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.




top topics



 
31
<< 262  263  264    266  267  268 >>

log in

join