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: 323
31
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 

So the following is just a coincidence?


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.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

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?
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.

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.


You bringing up the "missing link" is a clear indication that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. Here's why your missing argument is silly: LINK

You also don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific theory and religion. One requires logic and actual objective evidence as backup...the other is religion. For crying out loud, we are ACTIVELY USING THE THEORY in modern medicine!

As for your list of transitional fossils: LINK

In short: At least learn about the theory you want to criticize because otherwise you might end up making stupid statements...like saying "science" and "religion" is the same thing



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





That website lists objective scientific evidence for evolution...which ISN'T the same as you or some random sailor making up some fantasy story
Why not, we know yours at least is fiction, and mine is just assumed fiction, even though it specifically states its non fiction.




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'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.




This explains impressively how you keep on claiming people can live in whales...and you even continue to do so AFTER being proven wrong
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.




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
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.

And I beg to differ on my co worker as I had him read those sections as well.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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)
I love how you just totally missed the part that says we shouldn't question the biblical story. What a moron.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
Well why not, you guys keep sending me to that hypothesis link about evolution then stand up like its fact.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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"
Now thats rich.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 





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.
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.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 





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.
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.

FYI, you are correct, in the statement that without a missing link, there is no proof. They will try to argue using the common ancestor rule becasue that is as close to the truth research will ever get in evolution. They are in essence admitting that we wouldn't know how to identify a direct descendent if it slapped them in the face, and to add faith in the search for such by simply throwing more lineage between us and the other 2.5 million bones and fossils they have collected in 150 years.

It seriously makes them look so dumb and as though they are selling snake oil.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
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.
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.

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.


Your quoting me but I didn't write this.

Your trying to prove new and old species of monkeys in what looks like speciation, or some form of it. It's important to understand what happened here. Speciation would imply that the old monkeys and new ones would no longer be able to breed with one another. For some reason evolutionists think this is living proof that evolution is at work. I don't agree. I say it means they can no longer breed with each other, besideds, you overlooked your most important fact. You started with old monkeys, came up with new monkeys, and in the end, you still have wait for it........... monkeys!



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I want to see proof that we are using evolution in modern medicine.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

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!

The divide between Old World and New World monkeys is far greater than that between e.g. humans and chimps, but yes, they're still monkeys, very much the same way humans and chimps are still apes. Are whales still ungulates (well they never were, but ungulates and whales share a relatively recent common ancestor which looked a lot more like ungulates than whales, and yes, there is a fossil record from this ancestor to whales).

edit. whole point of original post was to question your view that genetics don't mean anything, yet you failed to address this part completely..
edit on 28-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I love how you just totally missed the part that says we shouldn't question the biblical story. What a moron.



Thank you for providing such a STUNNING example of blind belief


No facts, no rationality, no logic...just pure blind belief.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


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)

Given that he emphatically stated that humans are not primates for several pages of this thread and then proceeded to link a Wikipedia pages that categorically states that humans are primates as his proof that humans are not primates, I think you're putting way too much faith in High Genus He-who-shall-not-be-name of the First Interventionist Church of the Arcane Virus and his ability to read and process information.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

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.


Thereby showing you have no idea what a theory is and why it's called that, nor do you have any idea how theories are developed and tested.

You can't ever prove a theory correct--you can only prove it wrong. If you have any empirical evidence disproving evolution wrong, please share it. We'd love to see it.


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.


Puh-leeze. It's based on observation and testability. Please get that through your head.


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 we go again. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MISSING LINK. Deal with it.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

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.


Pot, meet kettle.

You know, there are school districts down in Georgia who'd love to have you and Toothy for students. You'd fit right in.

But what can you expect from someone who picks a Bruce Willis movie for a screen name?
edit on 3/28/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


You do realize that there is far more evidence against evolution than for and that Darwin has already been proven wrong eh? Want your proof, just look at us. If you think that we evolved into what we are today naturally, than how is it that we are the only species on this planet that does not try to live within the ecosystem, but actually try to change the ecosystem to benefit us, at the expense of all other creatures? One only needs to look out the door and see all the sheer morons walking around to see that "survival of the fittest" clearly went out the window hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Now it's just survival of the privileged. Now, when you also look at all of the evidence of some sort of "evolutionary intervention" taking place in ancient Sumeria, as well as Egypt, Quetzecotl, Sri Lanka and India (accounts of flying ships and "giants" (Nephilim) that are actually able to be corroborated, as most ancient mythologies in the world are pretty much the same). Are you gonna dismiss the knowledge of all of the ancients, on the sheer assumption that "oh hey they lived a long time ago, they must have been real dumb eh." Check and mate, sir.
edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


There is a reason why they call it the THEORY of evolution, dude. Theories only last long enough for them to be replaced by other theories. You put to much stock in the paltry understandings that we, as humans are capable of. You may think we are all infallible (or at least those in the field of "science"), but human understanding, especially as of late, is quite lacking if you ask me. The evolutionary theory is just the new "flat earth" as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Hate to break it to ya, but if they quoted you, you wrote it. -1 for the theory of evolution.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join