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.
Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
If you really, REALLY want that information, I suggest you start here and travel backwards through thisn thread, all of the answers have been supplied.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by itsthetooth
You know, I will let you in on a little secret. The theory of Evolution faced a disturbing problem until the late 1950's. This was the distribution of species, i.e. for example monkeys in the New World. They were clearly related to the monkeys of the Old World, but nobody could explain it, because there was no way these species could have ever made it to the New World (nobody assumed that breeding populations could cross oceans and in fact scientists used to draw hypothetical land bridges to maps where necessary). Then along came Plate Tectonics, which was later verified by actual measurements of the movements of continents. So we now knew when was the last time that the Old and New Worlds were connected. The really cool part is, that this estimate agrees with the estimated time (based on genomic data) when the hypothetical ancestor of Old and New World monkeys lived. That's one hell of a coincidence, if you still argue that genetics don't prove anything.
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Your scientific theory is just that. Thoery. Maths is the only true science. 1 + 1 will always equal two. Other sciences are simply theory. Newton theories on physics are proof of that.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
reply to post by idmonster
Yes... And many who fail to understand that evolution is a belief system based on faith.
Just like any religion.
Or they could actually study the subject and realize that a scientific theory (like evolution) is the EXACT opposite of faith/religion. It requires objective evidence, logic, rationality, and it has to be peer reviewed and be testable. All traits religion doesn't adhere to.
Question is, will your comeback consist of another ad hominem attack, or will you actually defend your viewpoint for once?
Evolution is the same as religion. It is based upon a set of assumptions which requie faith to believe that they are true and so the thery works... IF you belive in the assumptions that evolution is based upon.
If evolution is true... Show me the missing link. If fact show me one instance in which ANTHING has evolved. Show me one example of life on earth evolving into a different life form.
Why not, we know yours at least is fiction, and mine is just assumed fiction, even though it specifically states its non fiction.
That website lists objective scientific evidence for evolution...which ISN'T the same as you or some random sailor making up some fantasy story
I'm not trying to prove it, your trying to disprove it. I myself could care less one way or the other. But basically untill I hear you say that you attempted the feat yourself, your talking out your ass.
Pretty clear now that when you said you were a science major, you were basically talking out of your ass. If you can't even understand the difference between objective and subjective evidence, if you believe people can live inside whales and try to "prove" it through the bible, if you claim someone tampered with human DNA without providing a shred of evidence...well...then no one can help you. Why? Because you created your own FAITH BASED mini-religion. And since it isn't based on facts, rationality, and logic, having a rational/logical discussion isn't really possible.
Actually the way I read it makes more sense.
Pretty clear now that when you said you were a science major, you were basically talking out of your ass. If you can't even understand the difference between objective and subjective evidence, if you believe people can live inside whales and try to "prove" it through the bible, if you claim someone tampered with human DNA without providing a shred of evidence...well...then no one can help you. Why? Because you created your own FAITH BASED mini-religion. And since it isn't based on facts, rationality, and logic, having a rational/logical discussion isn't really possible.
I never claimed people could live inside whales, your assuming I believe that, and this isn't about what I believe its about fact and fiction. Or intervention and evolution.
This explains impressively how you keep on claiming people can live in whales...and you even continue to do so AFTER being proven wrong
LIsten dill weed and learn how to read, I could care less about proving the whale theory. Which seems to hold more water than evolution as far as I'm concearned. All I'm saying is that its possible, I never said I knew it to be fact, like you do about evolution. Regardless of how many times I have re posted the link proving evolution to be false. Evolution or at least the idea of it is not used in medicine except for some small instances in bacteria and viruses. At that it doesn't prove that evolution is to blame.
I'll ask again: WHAT'S YOUR PROOF THAT PEOPLE CAN SURVIVE INSIDE WHALES? You clearly believe that to be true, so what's your evidence? Clearly the bible isn't proof, neither is the sailor story you posted...and of course there's the FACT that it is biologically and physically impossible. So you need to have some super secret proof if you believe it...or admit you're a blind sheep who's following blind belief.
PS: Your co-worker (if he really exists) is just as clueless as you I'm afraid...at least when it comes to evolution
I love how you just totally missed the part that says we shouldn't question the biblical story. What a moron.
I know mrxyz got here before me, but I really do feel this needs repeating.
In order to back up a claim that people can LIVE inside a whale, mr itsthetooth posted the above link as evidence.
A quote from the article:
"The result of Davis's research was that he could not find any credible evidence to support the James Bartley story. In fact, he found evidence which made the story seem more questionable. He checked out a report that Bartley had been treated at a London hospital for the effects of the whale's gastric juices on his skin, but could not find any substantiation for it. When he read through the documents about the particular voyage during which the alleged whale incident happened, James Bartley was not listed as a crew member. More damaging to the story was a letter written by the wife of the captain of the 'Star of the East,' Mrs John Killam. The contents of her letter were published in 1907 in 'The Expository Times' by a reader who had corresponded with Mrs Killam about the whale story. She said, "There is not one word of truth to the whale story. I was with my husband all the years he was in the Star of the East. There was never a man lost overboard while my husband was with her. The sailor has told a great sea yarn."
I'm not reposting this to make tooth look uneducated, (he's more than capable of doing that himself) I am posting this to raise the question, if anyone can interpret a document so badly that they would post it in support of their POV when it clearly opposes everything they say, how much weight should be placed on any opinion they have of other documents from that point.
So, tooth, no matter what document you offer as "proof" for intervention, or against evolution, should we assume that you scrutinised the information to the same extent as the document above and then came to your decision on what you thought it means? (I actually dont think you do that anyway, I think you have an idea of what you want it to mean, and then briefly scan the document for phrases, or even single words that you believe support you hypothesis, without taking the information in context or as a whole)
Well why not, you guys keep sending me to that hypothesis link about evolution then stand up like its fact.
What do we get in return? Some dude repeating that garbage man inside whale claim, just before posting a link as "proof" that totally debunks his claim
Now thats rich.
Please tooth, come out and admit you're just trolling or an "evolutionist" trying to keep us entertained. If so, kudos, first beer on me if you ever make it to London. If not...well, first beer's still on me...but I doubt you could point out London on a map, and as we all know, beer isn't "target food"
Just because bacteria and viruses change species, is NOT proof of evolution. How do you not know those were changes that were always in there genes to begin with? You don't, and neither do scientists. You guessing and scientists simply accept it in calling it evolution because they have no other explanation of it. Hey if we don't know, then it must be evolution. You know what, its the weakest thing I have ever heard of. There is no way to know if those species had all of those genes to begin with. The most important part of all of this is that NONE of this has anything to do with humans.
We can prove it right by actively applying the theory...which we are...in modern medicine. The FACT that you can buy meds that wouldn't exist if the theory were wrong is proof that it's correct. Natural selection is only a subset of evolution.
Apparently this thread still has to be going because a lot of people don't seem to understand what evolution is...or believe in some bat# crazy alien theory they have no proof of
Clearly your a genius and I won't waste my time trying broaden your narrow vision.
Oh now you did it. Watch out because now they will try to use the jedi mind trick on you by saying that your an idot because there is no such thing as a missing link, we only have the common ancestor.
If evolution is true... Show me the missing link. If fact show me one instance in which ANTHING has evolved. Show me one example of life on earth evolving into a different life form.
Here hudson, I'm not one that buys into the whole evolution scam, so here is a link they keep sending me to. Don't be scared at how verbose it is, youll get an honest answer in the first two paragraphs. Let me know if you spot them.
If you really, REALLY want that information, I suggest you start here and travel backwards through thisn thread, all of the answers have been supplied.
Yes and as i've looked through the thread I fail to see any evidence of actual evolution taking place. Clearly I'm wasting my time here. enjoy your narrow minded ignorance.
Your quoting me but I didn't write this.
You know, I will let you in on a little secret. The theory of Evolution faced a disturbing problem until the late 1950's. This was the distribution of species, i.e. for example monkeys in the New World. They were clearly related to the monkeys of the Old World, but nobody could explain it, because there was no way these species could have ever made it to the New World (nobody assumed that breeding populations could cross oceans and in fact scientists used to draw hypothetical land bridges to maps where necessary). Then along came Plate Tectonics, which was later verified by actual measurements of the movements of continents. So we now knew when was the last time that the Old and New Worlds were connected. The really cool part is, that this estimate agrees with the estimated time (based on genomic data) when the hypothetical ancestor of Old and New World monkeys lived. That's one hell of a coincidence, if you still argue that genetics don't prove anything.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
You started with old monkeys, came up with new monkeys, and in the end, you still have wait for it........... monkeys!
I love how you just totally missed the part that says we shouldn't question the biblical story. What a moron.
So, tooth, no matter what document you offer as "proof" for intervention, or against evolution, should we assume that you scrutinised the information to the same extent as the document above and then came to your decision on what you thought it means? (I actually dont think you do that anyway, I think you have an idea of what you want it to mean, and then briefly scan the document for phrases, or even single words that you believe support you hypothesis, without taking the information in context or as a whole)
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Your scientific theory is just that. Thoery. Maths is the only true science. 1 + 1 will always equal two. Other sciences are simply theory.
Evolution is the same as religion. It is based upon a set of assumptions which requie faith to believe that they are true and so the thery works... IF you belive in the assumptions that evolution is based upon.
If evolution is true... Show me the missing link. If fact show me one instance in which ANTHING has evolved. Show me one example of life on earth evolving into a different life form.
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
If you really, REALLY want that information, I suggest you start here and travel backwards through thisn thread, all of the answers have been supplied.
Yes and as i've looked through the thread I fail to see any evidence of actual evolution taking place. Clearly I'm wasting my time here. enjoy your narrow minded ignorance.