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: 379
31
<< 376  377  378    380  381  382 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

He's a biologist. But let's keep in mind where his claims are coming from:


"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

--Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

His "scientific" claims against Darwinism stem from a religious and political agenda, not science, and have been roundly refuted.




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Let's just say he's a bit misinformed and clearly has an agenda against evolution. I have doubts he's even a biologist, but it's not really worth analyzing at this point. As soon as I hear 1 lie or misunderstanding I turn off the video. There are no scientific lies.
So what your saying is that scientists can't lie?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I move to have these two terms removed from this discussion.
You can move all you want, if you go anywhere is the real question.

I allready explained to you and provided copy and pasted examples of redundant meaning excessive. Excessive is also listed as a synonym to redundant.

Your trying to change the english language (no real shocker) just like when you and still are trying to get people to accept the fact that you don't use proper puncuation.

Then to make matters more confusing, your telling me that my terms are made up. In other words they are not listed in any dictionary becasue I made them up. Then you turn around and say my definitions are wrong. How could you know if they are wrong if I made them up? After all they aren't in any dictionary and I made them up, they should be allowed to be whatever I want them to be.

Your stumbling over your own dishonesty now.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Why would anyone ever agree to such nonsense, to not use important terms like that.

Tell you what Colin, why don't you just ignore them, like you always have.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I wonder if tooth has found the Top 20 Logical Fallacies ? I believe he has covered all 20 of them in his posts like clock work. It's like he is playing a game to see if he can fool people with fallacies.
My hat goes off to you for keeping up with such tautology and not allowing logical fallacies to rule.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by colin42
 


I wonder if tooth has found the Top 20 Logical Fallacies ? I believe he has covered all 20 of them in his posts like clock work. It's like he is playing a game to see if he can fool people with fallacies.
My hat goes off to you for keeping up with such tautology and not allowing logical fallacies to rule.


They're probably all on his bucket list


Greetings from beautiful Koh Phi Phi island!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by colin42
 


I wonder if tooth has found the Top 20 Logical Fallacies ? I believe he has covered all 20 of them in his posts like clock work. It's like he is playing a game to see if he can fool people with fallacies.
My hat goes off to you for keeping up with such tautology and not allowing logical fallacies to rule.


They're probably all on his bucket list


Greetings from beautiful Koh Phi Phi island!

Greetings!
Pictures or it didn't happen LOL!
Seriously what a beautiful place, a link to your adventure would be appreciated. Photobucket?

edit on 6-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I wonder if tooth has found the Top 20 Logical Fallacies ? I believe he has covered all 20 of them in his posts like clock work. It's like he is playing a game to see if he can fool people with fallacies.
My hat goes off to you for keeping up with such tautology and not allowing logical fallacies to rule.
The 10% brain myth is plausible. If you read the wiki on it, it's clear they know and admit to knowing very little about the brain.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I wonder if tooth has found the Top 20 Logical Fallacies ? I believe he has covered all 20 of them in his posts like clock work. It's like he is playing a game to see if he can fool people with fallacies.
My hat goes off to you for keeping up with such tautology and not allowing logical fallacies to rule.
The 10% brain myth is plausible. If you read the wiki on it, it's clear they know and admit to knowing very little about the brain.


lol......did you even click the link before deciding to reply? tooth's favorite game. What does the "10% brain myth" have to do with anything at flyingfish's link, which is discussing logical fallacies tactics used in debate?

Here's the wiki on the 10% Brain Myth . It is an urban myth, it is not plausible.

This comes to mind......


edit on 6-5-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





lol......did you even click the link before deciding to reply? tooth's favorite game. What does the "10% brain myth" have to do with anything at flyingfish's link, which is discussing logical fallacies tactics used in debate?

Here's the wiki on the 10% Brain Myth . It is an urban myth, it is not plausible.

This comes to mind......
Then you should have no problem directing me to the vehicle that was used to determine it to be a myth. I want to know the test that was done that scientifically rules it out.
edit on 6-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





lol......did you even click the link before deciding to reply? tooth's favorite game. What does the "10% brain myth" have to do with anything at flyingfish's link, which is discussing logical fallacies tactics used in debate?

Here's the wiki on the 10% Brain Myth . It is an urban myth, it is not plausible.

This comes to mind......
Then you should have no problem directing me to the vehicle that was used to determine it to be a myth. I want to know the test that was done that scientifically rules it out.
edit on 6-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Your not fooling anyone, we all know your well aware of the vehicle.



I know I broke the first Logical Fallacie (Ad hominem) but you walked right into that one

edit on 6-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





lol......did you even click the link before deciding to reply? tooth's favorite game. What does the "10% brain myth" have to do with anything at flyingfish's link, which is discussing logical fallacies tactics used in debate?

Here's the wiki on the 10% Brain Myth . It is an urban myth, it is not plausible.

This comes to mind......
Then you should have no problem directing me to the vehicle that was used to determine it to be a myth. I want to know the test that was done that scientifically rules it out.
edit on 6-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Not only did you not read flyingfish's link made evident by your 10% brain myth reply, which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the link, but you obviously didn't read mine either. It spells out why it is a myth citing it's scientific sources at the bottom, as common wiki format. There's even a link to MythBusters that de-bunkeds it SCIENTIFICALLY!

Being a obtuse troll is bad enough, but a lazy one as well, enters the realm of comedy. Hence the Abbot and Costello routine video I posted. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Your lack of understanding of the scientific method is apparent (ironic being a science major). You seem to even lack understanding of definitions, terms and context.

I see you keep claiming you have "won" this debate many times....you have failed miserably, time and time again. And if you think people are not able to refute your facts, it's because they are so ridiculous that it isn't worth the time, especially since you IGNORE all evidence presented to you and don't even visit the links supplied.


Let's do a quick poll of people following this thread shall we?

All those that think tooth has utterly failed, star this post ( or if you don't like giving stars, make a post stating your vote)

All those..........

(cont. post below)


edit on 6-5-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
....that think tooth has proven is stance and won the debate, star this post.


All that being said, post away tooth, the entertainment value, at your expense, is highly amusing


tooth's view of the world.......





posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


snap! Sweet



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

....that think tooth has proven is stance and won the debate, star this post.


All that being said, post away tooth, the entertainment value, at your expense, is highly amusing


tooth's view of the world.......




That sucks I wanted to star the post for the video!
I will agree that tooths posts are comically entertaining but sadly I think he actually believes his own fallacies. I think in his case no amount of proof is going to save him from himself. His delusion is complete and it's obvious he is submerged within denial.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


There is no vehicle, its ficticious.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


There has NEVER been a test that has been formed that determins the limitations of the brain, and its normal workings.

There is simply nothing to compare it to in order to build one.

So your idea that the myth is busted is false. I'm going to go with the alternative portion of the wiki page that clearly states after claiming so, that we actually know very little about the brain.

A savant that displays no negative benefits does however prove that the brain is actually capable of more than we expect. Since normal testing can only be done on what we expect, then we are obviously WRONG, and a savant proves it.

So what are you going to choose to believe in? The page that claims its a myth but is clear that we know very little about the brain, or the fact that a savant proves the brain is capable of more?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Can you prove evolution wrong?*

No.

The scientific theory seems to have a lot going for it.

Where we are concerned the fossil record from Australopithecus onward is both fascinating and compelling, even if it is incomplete as you would expect, IMO.

I can understand people questioning it and this doesn't seem unrealistic. I'm sure scientists themselves do this, testing ideas (hypotheses) seems to be how science works. When it does really seem unrealistic is when it is discounted via the agenda driven opinion of religious beliefs. Sadly, this seems to be where the main opposition comes from, which underneath it all is clinging to superstitious belief over verifiable facts.

A religious belief that can't reconcile with evolutionary theory is highly likely to be very wrong, IMO.



edit on 7-5-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You can move all you want, if you go anywhere is the real question.
Pathetic reply. You have to have wit before you can use cutting wit and you have neither.


Your trying to change the english language (no real shocker) just like when you and still are trying to get people to accept the fact that you don't use proper puncuation.
Is this part of your logical argument in defence of your made up term 'Redundant Adaption'?
It looks pretty weak so far.


Then to make matters more confusing, your telling me that my terms are made up.
Nope. I have shown you your terms are made up. Did you not understand the post opposing the use of them?


In other words they are not listed in any dictionary becasue I made them up.
Correct and the fact they are nonsense as I showed in my post that I invited you to make a reasoned logical argument against. Looks to me like it is not going to happen.



Then you turn around and say my definitions are wrong.
Nope. I have made an argument that shows them to be complete nonsense. Did you not read it? You are replying to it right?


How could you know if they are wrong if I made them up?
You didnt read the post you are replying to then? I used logic and reasoning and an understanding of what evolution explains that is either beyond your capability to understand or scares you into cowardly denial.


After all they aren't in any dictionary and I made them up, they should be allowed to be whatever I want them to be.
Correct but when using them within a topic such as this you HAVE to define their meaning or keep them to yourself and not use them on this thread.


Your stumbling over your own dishonesty now.
There is only one dishonest person here. The one that makes up terms which he cannot and will not define so that he can change them at will when losing a point as he always does. That person is you tooth.

So from this reply to me I see that no matter how this subject is approached you refuse to join in with any meaningful content. You are only prepared to post mis-information. Use dishonesty and lies.

Your failure to supply any definitions to your terms. Your cowardly avoidance to offer a logical, reasoned argument in support of those terms and in opposition to any point I made as usual means you have not only lost this debate as you have all the others, it means your made up terms will no longer be acceptable in this thread

YOU LOST.
edit on 7-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Why would anyone ever agree to such nonsense, to not use important terms like that.

Tell you what Colin, why don't you just ignore them, like you always have.
The reason why an honest person would agree to explain those made up terms is to enable discussion of the topic to continue. Obviously beyond your understanding.

Your made up terms have no meaning until you do and so have zero importance. It is clear you will not supply them and so they and you have no importance.

You dont have to tell me to ignore your made up terms. You lost the debate by not offering an opposing argument and so lost the right to have them taken seriously.

Your arguments are redundant and your silly posts and lies are excessive. The only thing you have shown this group is that you personally use less than 10% of your brain. To me from my observations of you, I'd go as far as to guess you use less than 1%


edit on 7-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 376  377  378    380  381  382 >>

log in

join