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: 361
31
<< 358  359  360    362  363  364 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It doesn't matter how many people come up with that nonsense

Until any of them present OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to support their claims, they're all simply spreading fiction. The hilarious part is, they all looooove to mix real science with their pseudo-scientific claims...that way they can lure gullible people into believing their nonsense claims.
I see so its another everyone else is wrong and your right scenerio. But you want proof.


Of course I want proof


I care about logic and rationality...so I refuse to buy into fairy tales without solid evidence, something you fail at presenting.




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, being buoyant means you float
And floating isn't a form of weightlessness?


You were talking about buoyancy...

You are "weightless" under neutral buoyancy, float on top if you're positively buoyant, and since if you have negative buoyancy.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Only pasted a sample of your repeated Imbecilic inability to understand basic English. I will post this again that you have avoided around 5 times when asked for definitions of the TERMS YOU MADE UP AND USE.
Here is an example of how words change when combined.
And as I have stated many times the words I chose do not come up with any alternate meanings, so if you just use the english language, which you seem to be having trouble with, you will get a clear definition.

With exception to target food.





Your terms below are the same as in #4 above. You need to supply the definitions to them for them to have any meaning. Giving definitions for each single word is not an answer.
Well I understand what your doing. Your just trying to drill me for alternate terms hoping that you can throw them out, or that if I choose to use there standard meaning, throw them out claiming they have no term.

It's like when you asked me to define in the wild, its as if you have your own definition of what that is and want to validate that. I'm not here to validate made up words and made up terms, I'm here to validate facts. If I have to choose words that you have different beliefs about, thats not my fault.




A BIG problem for you is you base everything on what you think and then claim it to be PROOF. It is clearly not. YOU clearly cannot provide any proof or supporting evidence which is why you lost this debate. Your dead, you just wont lie down.
Again in hindsight and with to many people and things pointing all in the same direction, I think your out numbered.




The only thing that is hard to argue is that you change information to suit your current issue. A nice way of calling you a liar so let me be more blunt.
Actually I won it. The best you could do was avoid my questions from direct answer and interperupt your own versions of words to claim you have won. Pretty lame if you ask me DR Colin.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





You just have a feeling?


I think all your doing is picking and choosing the things that may or may not support your-ridiculous fantasy's. I think it's funny you can spin and string things together to get intervention, but you can't put mountains of evidence for evolution together and see the bigger picture.
You would fit well here with all the other religious nutters.
Intervention is much larger than evolution, but yet its easier to see how there is no holes in any of it.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





So you are in agreement that a single celled organism can evolve into a Multicellular Organism....am I reading you right here? Split Infinity
Oh please, I have read the wiki claims that microevolution has been witnessed in some aquatic life, some viruses and bacteria, and other sites claiming to have also seen it in some insects. Aside from that it has not been witnessed in any other species, including humans.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





So you are in agreement that a single celled organism can evolve into a Multicellular Organism....am I reading you right here? Split Infinity
Oh please, I have read the wiki claims that microevolution has been witnessed in some aquatic life, some viruses and bacteria, and other sites claiming to have also seen it in some insects. Aside from that it has not been witnessed in any other species, including humans.


Except, it has


We have a pretty good idea about how speciation lead to the evolution of modern man.

Of course you asking to see it happening in front of your eyes in real time in anything but bacteria/insects is beyond ridiculous...it just shows you can't grasp the time frames involved in the process



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





You just have a feeling?


I think all your doing is picking and choosing the things that may or may not support your-ridiculous fantasy's. I think it's funny you can spin and string things together to get intervention, but you can't put mountains of evidence for evolution together and see the bigger picture.
You would fit well here with all the other religious nutters.
Intervention is much larger than evolution, but yet its easier to see how there is no holes in any of it.

LMAO!



edit on 15-4-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Once my gymnasium biology teacher frased a similar question - "Do not take any side, but write down points for and against evolution, then argue with each other with each point in a debate.". Well, he ended up calling me bumptious, in class, since I proved the evolution algorithm to yield adaption, given a closed (or limited) system and a few other prerequisites (for instance, entities that duplicates imperfectly). With an evolution algorithm [the means of evolution] as an undisputable theorem, provided; I asked him to refrase his proposed debate, since, at least to me, it appeared to be intellectually dishonest. Did evolution exists within the boundaries of earth or a subset of earth, at any selected period of time, small or large? That would be the question. I then suggested that I could demonstrate a positive answer to his corrected question, with me being a limited environment, a subset of earths boundaries and a collection of frute flies. I believe the class started to derail at that moment but nevertheless, I still hold that discussions of this sort are either invalid or intellectually dishonest. Because to me, debates always implies dishonesty or lack of insights into truth. As such, invalid, given no reason to debate.
edit on 16-4-2012 by Since1981 because: english



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Confusion42
 





I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. —Isaiah 45:7


Never heard that one before...bat# insane!! God sounds like a schizophrenic psychopath in that plasm


Ever read the entire OT? He's not only schizo, but a bloodthirsty, psychopathic megalomaniac who's all for gang rape, mass murder, terrorism, incest, genocide...the list goes on.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Confusion42
 





I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. —Isaiah 45:7


Never heard that one before...bat# insane!! God sounds like a schizophrenic psychopath in that plasm


Ever read the entire OT? He's not only schizo, but a bloodthirsty, psychopathic megalomaniac who's all for gang rape, mass murder, terrorism, incest, genocide...the list goes on.


...but he loves you



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


You cannot even discus neither creation or evolution without actually know how life began... because if you can figure out how life began then you would have your answer..

all this is just speculation and mental masterbation



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Except, it has

We have a pretty good idea about how speciation lead to the evolution of modern man.

Of course you asking to see it happening in front of your eyes in real time in anything but bacteria/insects is beyond ridiculous...it just shows you can't grasp the time frames involved in the process
See I don't like to go by ideas. I think there is insurmountable evidence alone in the bible. Which happens to be backed up with Pye's DNA findings, which are public record. Happens to be backed up by Von Daniken, happens to be backed up by Sitchen.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Except, it has

We have a pretty good idea about how speciation lead to the evolution of modern man.

Of course you asking to see it happening in front of your eyes in real time in anything but bacteria/insects is beyond ridiculous...it just shows you can't grasp the time frames involved in the process
See I don't like to go by ideas. I think there is insurmountable evidence alone in the bible. Which happens to be backed up with Pye's DNA findings, which are public record. Happens to be backed up by Von Daniken, happens to be backed up by Sitchen.


1) They're not "ideas", they're scientific theories...but you know that already, you simply ignore it and continue your trolling


2) The bible ISN'T objective evidence given the HUNDREDS of things that are demonstrably wrong with it. And don't ever bother saying "I have never seen anything that's wrong with the bible" because you were provided with dozens of examples throughout this thread.

3) Pye isn't providing objective evidence to support his claim, he is therefore presenting FICTION until he does.

4) Van Daniken and Sitchen are both pseudo-scientists who have never provided objective evidence to support their claims.

In short: You have NO IDEA about what objective evidence is and why it's so important



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


If Evolution is so rock solid, then please, PLEASE explain to me why it is, not everyone believes in it. After all there is factual proof right? There is enough evidence to call it a scientific fact right? If its so factual, why doesn't everyone believe in it.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 


If Evolution is so rock solid, then please, PLEASE explain to me why it is, not everyone believes in it. After all there is factual proof right? There is enough evidence to call it a scientific fact right? If its so factual, why doesn't everyone believe in it.


Everyone who actually understands the theory (you clearly don't) believes in it.


The vast majority of scientists believe in it, and the percentage is even higher for earth & life scientists (less than 0.5% don't believe in it!!). So the people who are best qualified to understand the theory see it for the sound theory it is.

As to why a minority (!!) of the population doesn't accept it? Religious ignorance (that's the key reason for the Middle East too) and a pretty horrible education system in some states.

Public belief in favor of evolution is at around 80% in the developed world. The only countries were support is lower are fundamentalist Muslim countries...oh...and the US


So yeah, religious ignorance plays a major role as statistics and your posts impressively show



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





The vast majority of scientists believe in it, and the percentage is even higher for earth & life scientists (less than 0.5% don't believe in it!!). So the people who are best qualified to understand the theory see it for the sound theory it is.
I don't know where your getting your numbers from, but that looks like a rectally derived figure.

I have last read that about 1/2 the population believes in evolution.

And its a no wonder why. With the recent find of mtDNA clearly revealing that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years old, it was the only mainstream belief that was left to offer. Intervention is actually not even heard of by most people and when I present it, most people flat out tell me they have never heard of the idea.

Even the mtDNA article on wiki called mitochondrial eve states after offering evolution as an idea, that we need to look to more pioneering ideas to come up with answers. I think its obvious they are clearly stateing that both religion and evolution aren't giving answers.
edit on 16-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





No And you didnt answer whether the bible was wrong given that it seems to support what you claimed to be a typo?
The facts do seem pretty straight and forward, its the supernatural I'm questioning.




So given you say your statment above was a typo, and given this typo was supported by, (so you say the bible). Is the bible wrong in this case?
No it was my typo, not sure if you noticed but I contradicted myself in the two.
And you still have not answered whether the bible was wrong which it must be for your statement that it supported to e a typo.

Dont know if I noticed you contradicted yourself
I have been pointing that out for pages before you decided to come out with the typo lie as a cover story.

But again lets say it was not a lie the bible still supported the 'typo' so the bible was in that case wrong? What is the answer?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





The vast majority of scientists believe in it, and the percentage is even higher for earth & life scientists (less than 0.5% don't believe in it!!). So the people who are best qualified to understand the theory see it for the sound theory it is.
I don't know where your getting your numbers from, but that looks like a rectally derived figure.

I have last read that about 1/2 the population believes in evolution.

And its a no wonder why. With the recent find of mtDNA clearly revealing that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years old, it was the only mainstream belief that was left to offer. Intervention is actually not even heard of by most people and when I present it, most people flat out tell me they have never heard of the idea.

Even the mtDNA article on wiki called mitochondrial eve states after offering evolution as an idea, that we need to look to more pioneering ideas to come up with answers. I think its obvious they are clearly stateing that both religion and evolution aren't giving answers.
edit on 16-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Oh tooth...criticizing my numbers before doing the least bit of research


No, the numbers aren't made up, they're REAL.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Also, regarding that "mitochondrial Eve"...at no point was there a single woman!!! Read the whole damn article on Wiki, at least do that for crying out loud.

I'll link it again: LINK

And here's the relevant quote (because I know you won't bother looking it up):




One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women alive at Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.


Also, "Adam" didn't live around the same time...so no, it doesn't back up the bible:




Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.


You can't just scan titles for keywords that might fit your BELIEF, you have to dig a little bit deeper and spend some time reading the whole article. How else do you expect to ever learn anything??



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And as I have stated many times the words I chose do not come up with any alternate meanings, so if you just use the english language, which you seem to be having trouble with, you will get a clear definition.

With exception to target food.
You, without a doubt are the most stupid, ignorant person on the planet.

YOU USE TERMS not WORDS and the TERMS you use are what you MADE UP. Define the TERMS not the WORDS contained in the TERM


And as I have stated many times the words I chose do not come up with any alternate meanings, so if you just use the english language, which you seem to be having trouble with, you will get a clear definition.
No you dunce. I am asking you to define your made up words just as I would expect others to ask for if I wrote about 'costume swimming'. Read it again you fool.


1. Swimming: The action of moving through water.
2. Costumes: A set of clothing or single garment that makes up an outfit.
3. Swimming costume. Clothes that you swim in so you dont get arrested for skinny dipping.
4. Costume Swimming. Means nothing at all. I would have to define meaning If I wished to use it.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition as in #4



It's like when you asked me to define in the wild,
No you complete dolt I ask you to explain what IN THE WILD meant in the context you used it. Not WILD or WILDLIFE see the example given showing you cannot mix words without changing their meaning.


its as if you have your own definition of what that is and want to validate that.
It was trying to understand the childish gibberish you use and also tie you down to ONE definition that you could not alter later as you have been doing.


I'm not here to validate made up words and made up terms, I'm here to validate facts.
You cannot validate facts by making up words or more to the point TERMS. If you make them up, you have to supply their meaning.


If I have to choose words that you have different beliefs about, thats not my fault.
Again meaningless babble and again 'redundant adaption' is not a word. It is a TERM


Again in hindsight and with to many people and things pointing all in the same direction, I think your out numbered.
Really. Name them.


Actually I won it. The best you could do was avoid my questions from direct answer and interperupt your own versions of words to claim you have won. Pretty lame if you ask me DR Colin.
Funny, everyone else here believes you have failed to provide any argument for your standpoint. Agree you have provided no evidence and are all agreed you are prepared to lie to cover your ignorance.

You lost boy and you lost BIG TIME



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 358  359  360    362  363  364 >>

log in

join