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: 426
31
<< 423  424  425    427  428  429 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It's amazing...watching you post is like watching the Titanic crash in slow motion


You are comically wrong on every single one of your claims!!




Are you smoking crack? It's a forum not a blog, do you think your on a blog right now?


First of all, how would being a forum make it any more credible??? ATS is a forum, yet blindly believing the reptile people are taking over the world being sponsored by Soros and the communists/socialists is STUPID.

Secondly, it IS a community blog website. Why?

a) It allows members to create blogs.
b) It is actively looking for contributors.

Proof:




Of course you don't care about that and blindly believe whatever that GARBAGE website says...only because it fits your crazy preconceived notions


Again: OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MATTERS!!




Copyright 2006 all rights reserved


How does that make it any better??? I run an affiliate website selling web hosting packages...and I too have a "copyright" on my page. Doesn't make it any more credible.




Are you trying to say that if something comes from a forum, which in this case there is no proof that whats being displayed did or didn't, so your assuming. Means that its worthless?


No...what I'm saying is that if you are looking for science information, you should go check out SCIENTIFIC sources and not some website where literally everyone can post


Also, they don't even bother sourcing their claims...not that this would ever bother you, we all know you don't really care about facts





No its clear from the well trusted and highly directed to site that I keep using that evolution is a hypothesis.


Total and utter bull#...just like all the other uneducated garbage you post.

As others have pointed out at least half a dozen times, the theory of evolution is a THEORY (and fact btw) and NOT a hypothesis. However, of course people working in fields related to the theory of evolution create new hypothesis as they learn more.

For example, a scientist might put out a hypothesis stating "those jungle frogs originally come from Sumatra". That's a hypothesis until it's proven...and it's related to the theory of evolution...but clearly it doesn't turn the THEORY of evolution into a hypothesis.

Once again, you chose to ignore facts because they go against your INCREDIBLY DUMB personal religion. I pity you to be honest, because after 400+ pages it's clear whoever educated you at school was a total failure.




All of the sites I have been able to find say that evolution is a series of hypothesis, and theories.


Again, having hypothesis related to the theory of evolution doesn't turn the theory into a hypothesis. If a doctor has a hypothesis that THC cures cancer, that's a hypothesis...but it doesn't change the fact that radiation theory is beneficial as a cancer treatment





I have yet to find that claiming it to be a scientific theory.


My previous link clearly proved that it's a theory...and so does the other link in this post. Of course you're simply going to ignore that





Either way majority rules.



No...in science OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE rules. But even if majority rules....the majority (aka 99%+) of scientists working in fields related to the theory agree that it's a sound theory. So either way, as always, you are comically wrong





I just ran into someone last week in a meeting, we were talking about evolution, and she strongly agrees and supports it, but also admits that its an unproven theory.



Oh...."someone in a meeting" said that? It MUST be true





How are you going to peer review something that happened back in biblical times


By examining the objective evidence...the same way we know all the other things about history and natural evolution





Peer reviews are important but I seriously doubt if they are the sole determining factor on if something is good or not


They really are...it's a cornerstone of scientific method and makes sure no one can come out with bat# crazy claims (like Pye) without being laughed at





Then there is the example of Pyes findings. He is using the human genome in his example to expose things that prove intervention, and the fact that we have an absurd amount of defects in our genes.



Pye never showed any objective evidence to support his claims. The one time he allowed peer reviews, those reviews showed him to be 100% wrong...mostly because the skull showed 0% (!!!) non-human components.

I know you don't care about those facts, so I'm merely writing this for the logical thinking rational people following this thread



edit on 27-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


That video is a classic example of how its being assumed that this land whale evolved at all. Just because he has feet and works in the water, its being assumed that he evolved. Thats not proof, its an assumption.


How are they assuming? They can trace common features all the way back, specifically the ear bone used for balance, which is unlike any other lineage. They are not assuming it evolved because it works in the water. They know it evolved because they found several ancestors that trace it back to land. If you saw the video you'd know this. Believe it or not the hippopotamus and whale are cousins that share a recent common ancestor, much like humans and chimps. It's not surprising. While hippos stayed living in lakes and ponds, the whales moved into more ocean like environments.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Please explain what you mean because if you are saying what I think you are saying this will be the dumbest reply you have ever made ......... well lately
I'm just stating the obvious that there is no proof.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Please explain what you mean because if you are saying what I think you are saying this will be the dumbest reply you have ever made ......... well lately
I'm just stating the obvious that there is no proof.


Don't make me post that monkey picture again



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Please explain what you mean because if you are saying what I think you are saying this will be the dumbest reply you have ever made ......... well lately
I'm just stating the obvious that there is no proof.
I am more interested in what you meant by:


That video is a classic example of how its being assumed that this land whale evolved at all. Just because he has feet and works in the water, its being assumed that he evolved. Thats not proof, its an assumption.
Please expand on your understanding of the land whale.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm saying evolutionists are assuming that he evolved, just what I wrote.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm saying evolutionists are assuming that he evolved, just what I wrote.
Besides they have found the fossils to prove this. Who do you think 'he' the land whale is/was?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It's amazing...watching you post is like watching the Titanic crash in slow motion

You are comically wrong on every single one of your claims!!
I found a site that totally disagrees with your belief, and I'm crashing and burning. I'm not seeing that.

If I'm wrong then I suggest you post something that proves it so because up untill now I have nothing.




First of all, how would being a forum make it any more credible??? ATS is a forum, yet blindly believing the reptile people are taking over the world being sponsored by Soros and the communists/socialists is STUPID.

Secondly, it IS a community blog website. Why?

a) It allows members to create blogs.
b) It is actively looking for contributors.
Well then you should have no problem posting something so that you can find more to follow your belief.




Again: OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MATTERS!!
Well since you seem to have the answers, maybe you could explain to me how you would go about getting proof of something that happened back in biblical times?




How does that make it any better??? I run an affiliate website selling web hosting packages...and I too have a "copyright" on my page. Doesn't make it any more credible.
Me too, but it was how having it made it look like the furtherest thing from a blog.




No...what I'm saying is that if you are looking for science information, you should go check out SCIENTIFIC sources and not some website where literally everyone can post

Also, they don't even bother sourcing their claims...not that this would ever bother you, we all know you don't really care about facts
It looked more to be the work of a peer reviewer, which is why I still think it looks and sounds pretty credible.

I'm learning on here that people aren't allowed to construct their own findings from others work, as though it just isn't possible.




Total and utter bull#...just like all the other uneducated garbage you post.
Only problem is its not me posting it, I'm taking it off the evolution site.


Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
www.talkorigins.org...
Need I say more?




As others have pointed out at least half a dozen times, the theory of evolution is a THEORY (and fact btw) and NOT a hypothesis. However, of course people working in fields related to the theory of evolution create new hypothesis as they learn more.

For example, a scientist might put out a hypothesis stating "those jungle frogs originally come from Sumatra". That's a hypothesis until it's proven...and it's related to the theory of evolution...but clearly it doesn't turn the THEORY of evolution into a hypothesis.
Nor does it turn it into a fact.




Once again, you chose to ignore facts because they go against your INCREDIBLY DUMB personal religion. I pity you to be honest, because after 400+ pages it's clear whoever educated you at school was a total failure.
I was never able to find any facts, only hypothesis and theories.




Again, having hypothesis related to the theory of evolution doesn't turn the theory into a hypothesis. If a doctor has a hypothesis that THC cures cancer, that's a hypothesis...but it doesn't change the fact that radiation theory is beneficial as a cancer treatment
I'm still waiting for facts.






My previous link clearly proved that it's a theory...and so does the other link in this post. Of course you're simply going to ignore that
No I'm not, its that a theory differs from a scientific theory.

I think your ignoring that.




No...in science OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE rules. But even if majority rules....the majority (aka 99%+) of scientists working in fields related to the theory agree that it's a sound theory. So either way, as always, you are comically wrong
And I'll bet 100% if those are evolutionists.




Oh...."someone in a meeting" said that? It MUST be true
No you missed the point, it was a biased subject in YOUR favor yet she understood that evolution is an unproven theory.




By examining the objective evidence...the same way we know all the other things about history and natural evolution
Studying the life here will not give accurate infomation on origons as some of it is not from here.

Epic fail.




They really are...it's a cornerstone of scientific method and makes sure no one can come out with bat# crazy claims (like Pye) without being laughed at
I doubt very seriously if the lack of peer reviews is direct proof that something is not good, but call me silly.






posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Pye never showed any objective evidence to support his claims. The one time he allowed peer reviews, those reviews showed him to be 100% wrong...mostly because the skull showed 0% (!!!) non-human components.
True but had you of followed the history on what happened after that claim, you would have learned that lab was only able to test for one type of DNA as the other would come out, and proved differently on the skull.




I know you don't care about those facts, so I'm merely writing this for the logical thinking rational people following this thread
Well then it would be more beneficial if you actually had facts to back up your belief, and actually knew a little bit more about the history of what really happened to the skull after the fact.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





How are they assuming? They can trace common features all the way back, specifically the ear bone used for balance, which is unlike any other lineage. They are not assuming it evolved because it works in the water. They know it evolved because they found several ancestors that trace it back to land. If you saw the video you'd know this. Believe it or not the hippopotamus and whale are cousins that share a recent common ancestor, much like humans and chimps. It's not surprising. While hippos stayed living in lakes and ponds, the whales moved into more ocean like environments.
The problem is that we have clear documentation telling us that a creator made this life. Now untill someone can honestly debunk a creator, with something more than calling it a bat crazy belief or saying its magic mumbo jumbo, I'm going to be skepticle.

The several ancestors are nothing more than whats refered to as overlap in the DNA. Hell humans have 70% overlap with rats, but we aren't related are we? Your once again accepting assumptions based on association, that don't prove diddley.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


He was a land animal that sought out a new source of food and took on the water to.
Its a nice story, but unfortuntally lacks the most important thing, proof.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well since you seem to have the answers, maybe you could explain to me how you would go about getting proof of something that happened back in biblical times?


Not by going to blogs and forums full of people who aren't qualified to make claims regarding evolution. I'd talk to people (or read their books/articles) who actually STUDY the subject matter.

Archaeologists, biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, micro biologists, geneticists, and the list goes on.

As we've shown time and time again, all those people listed above disagree with you...and they do so because your "evidence" is based on garbage pseudo-scientific websites like the one you linked.



Oh, and I know saying this is pointless because you ignore facts....but evolution is a FACT.




The problem is that we have clear documentation telling us that a creator made this life.


What documentation?


If you say "the bible" I'm gonna burst out laughing

edit on 27-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


He was a land animal that sought out a new source of food and took on the water to.
Its a nice story, but unfortuntally lacks the most important thing, proof.


...except we have proof. You know, the stuff you loooooooooooove to ignore in order to protect your fantasyland religion



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The problem is that we have clear documentation telling us that a creator made this life. Now untill someone can honestly debunk a creator, with something more than calling it a bat crazy belief or saying its magic mumbo jumbo, I'm going to be skepticle.

We also have clear documentation of the adventures of Harry Potter. That doesn't mean the stories are true. Last millennium's Jesus or Noah could easily be today's Harry Potter. We simply can't validate the stories.


Hell humans have 70% overlap with rats, but we aren't related are we?

Yes, as a matter of fact we are.

Also the evolution of whales isn't about genetic overlap, it's about fossilized ancestors that share distinct features. I don't think they've gotten basilosaurus DNA, but I could be wrong. Coming from land makes way more sense than the water, because a fish that spends its entire life in water would never need to breathe air to survive.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


He was a land animal that sought out a new source of food and took on the water to.
Its a nice story, but unfortuntally lacks the most important thing, proof.
Except for all the proof.

I see. Just you in denial again, using ignorant language in an attempt to hide that denial and belittle Evolution. Sadly all you do is belittle yourself. Same old tooth then.

Strangely you can believe a nice story about a man living in a whale with no proof at all but cannot/will not understand the evolutionary process that produced the whale and the evidence that supports it.

So now you show how these experts are wrong. Explain the whale.


edit on 27-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well since you seem to have the answers, maybe you could explain to me how you would go about getting proof of something that happened back in biblical times?
Others have pretty much destroyed all your other baseless opinions and very poor research but you bring up this old cherry again.

It is not up to science to prove or disprove Jesus or the flood or mosses parting the seas. It actually is not even up to those with faith to do so as they have faith. You on the other hand claim this to be true and that the bible is clear documentation of it. (You lost that debate remember).

Just as science does not try to prove/disprove Tolkien’s elves, dwarfs and hobbits it has no reason to prove/disprove the bible. You have based your belief system on the bible so you have two choices. Go away happy with your homemade faith or provide the evidence that science will take seriously. Your denial and preaching what you believe does not constitute that evidence. It certainly is no challenge to the Theory of Evolution.



edit on 27-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Not by going to blogs and forums full of people who aren't qualified to make claims regarding evolution. I'd talk to people (or read their books/articles) who actually STUDY the subject matter.
Well out of about 20 people that I have asked how they feel about evolution, 2 sided with it. One however knew and admitted to not knowing anything about it, and the other told me she understood that it was an unproven theory. Thats on the straight and honest. The rest of the people I asked are like hell no.




Archaeologists, biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, micro biologists, geneticists, and the list goes on.
Regardless of anyones credentials, I can still see how evolution could appear to fool people. The idea of the theories working together construct a pretty good path for imagination. Evolution has no predictive value. It's also never been varified to have made changes, its only assumed when changes are discovered. So again I direct you to my ADHD theory on that assumption. The assuming is doing nothing but feeding the imagination of the series of theories that hold evolution together. You might not be able to see that as your head is to deep into falling for anything that evolution dishes out.




As we've shown time and time again, all those people listed above disagree with you...and they do so because your "evidence" is based on garbage pseudo-scientific websites like the one you linked.
Thats only because most people buy the idea of changes being from evolution since they have no other explanation. It's just like saying you have to pick a religion, there is no believing in nothing. I see it however, and I don't buy it. Of course most of them agree, they witness changes, and assume its evolution because they have nothing better to go on. I never said I have all the answers but ADHD changes was one of them. ADHD is testable, evolution is NOT. ADHD is predictable, evolution is NOT. All I was saying was that I could see them accidentily accepting the change of ADHD as being a change that evolution did, and its not, it was genetic and or influenced from everything I read.




Oh, and I know saying this is pointless because you ignore facts....but evolution is a FACT
Please, I want to see peer reviews on that, evolution is NOT a fact. If it were, it would be mandatory in every school in the world, Of the 12 sections or so of evoltuion only 1 of them was proven, and it wasn't even to be proven to be occuring from evolution, so please don't make me laugh.


Your being naive and whats funny here is that I'm the one that believes that aliens did it.



The problem is that we have clear documentation telling us that a creator made this life.
What documentation?
If you say "the bible" I'm gonna burst out laughing
Why do you have something that proves the bible wrong? Please if I'm not able to prove what happened back in biblical days, you sure in the hell aren't going to be able to disprove something as well.

You have about as much to disprove the bible as I do to prove it, which isn't to much at this point. So your just voicing your belief. My decisions and baisis for all this has nothing to do with belief. All I'm saying is that we have documentation of things that happend back in that time. If you choose to not believe them just because, thats your loss, I don't make decisions based on nothing like that.

Your obviously suffering from some sort of complex and your making another wrong assumption. Your assuming that we have all the necessary elements to recreate what happened in the bible, and like I have pointed out, its clear that we don't. Your also making another crude assumption as well, that we know and understand and can do anything at this point. Your wrong again, we are NOT gods. Your god complex is going to hold you back further in life than any religion would, you can bet on that.

Your a know it all.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





He was a land animal that sought out a new source of food and took on the water to.
Its a nice story, but unfortuntally lacks the most important thing, proof.


...except we have proof. You know, the stuff you loooooooooooove to ignore in order to protect your fantasyland religion
Assumptions are made once again. There is no PROOF this land animal evolved. Of course it looks like he did, and there are a lot of things that you could say appear to have evolved, but looks can be deceiving, I like something a little more solid called proof. It might sound unfair since I'm the one with little proof that aliens did it, but thats only at the cause of you not accepting the bible, which is not my fault. The other side of that is that aliens don't live here, but the rest of us do, so you have no excuse for not being able to prove evolution. And when I say prove, it should be able to be proven with your eyes closed. There is simply no excuse for this tit for tat crap when we have over 5 million species here that should more than enough cover it with our eyes closed.

We should have a plethora of common ancestors for each species, and so much so that sub species would rule in choices. We should also be able to link species together with no questions. Evolution should also be predictive to some degree and its not. The guessing game was just another way to say we don't know but its real. The common ancestor term to replace the missing link term was just another way to say, we can't find anything, but they are still related.

So many people came up with clever theories that connect, and have now been accepted by some to be fact. Please present something to me with a little substance and proof.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
The problem is that we have clear documentation telling us that a creator made this life. Now untill someone can honestly debunk a creator, with something more than calling it a bat crazy belief or saying its magic mumbo jumbo, I'm going to be skepticle.

We also have clear documentation of the adventures of Harry Potter. That doesn't mean the stories are true. Last millennium's Jesus or Noah could easily be today's Harry Potter. We simply can't validate the stories.


This is where your understanding is seriously lacking and making you look foolish at the same time. Harry potter is listed as a fantasy book. This means that the author didn't want there to be confusion like you seem to be having at this moment. You might want to educate yourself on this different options there are for catagorys.

Now your comparing this to the bible, which of course explains why you choose to not believe in it, and if I did the same thing I would agree with you. You obviously failed at reading the preface of the book. And don't feel bad I did this for half my life as well. Your just so anxious to get to the good stuff that you skip right over the preface. The ESV which stands for english standard version, as its probably best to stay in your language.

In the preface the book is catagorized in the supernatural section. Now we don't typically have that catagory with what we currently read so this means your going to have to do something almost impossible, that is to have an open mind. Because when it comes to this catagory you don't know dick.




Hell humans have 70% overlap with rats, but we aren't related are we?

Yes, as a matter of fact we are.

Also the evolution of whales isn't about genetic overlap, it's about fossilized ancestors that share distinct features. I don't think they've gotten basilosaurus DNA, but I could be wrong. Coming from land makes way more sense than the water, because a fish that spends its entire life in water would never need to breathe air to survive
Again your making an assumption that all of this life is from here to begin with while we have documentation that its not. It really throws everything up in the air and makes a mess but that is what we are dealing with.

Again on the overlap, there is no proof we are related to rats other then through DNA. Assumptions are being made that because we share a lot of DNA we must be related, there is no basis for proof.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





He was a land animal that sought out a new source of food and took on the water to.
Its a nice story, but unfortuntally lacks the most important thing, proof.
Except for all the proof.
I have asked many times to bless me with something of substance. Something that is peer reviewed and passed inspection.

I still have nothing.




I see. Just you in denial again, using ignorant language in an attempt to hide that denial and belittle Evolution. Sadly all you do is belittle yourself. Same old tooth then.
I understand evolution pretty well, I just don't buy into it.




Strangely you can believe a nice story about a man living in a whale with no proof at all but cannot/will not understand the evolutionary process that produced the whale and the evidence that supports it.
Like I just explained in my previous reply, your comparing your understanding with todays standards of catagorys which don't hold up to comparison.

The fact is you don't know dick about the supernatural catagory, which is also why your in disagreement or fail to want to understand.


So now you show how these experts are wrong. Explain the whale.
Ok but its the last time Colin. Everything is possible in the bible if the supernatural elements were present to allow them to happen. We no longer have access to those elements, so we cant recreate them.

Now go on and tell me how you have a god complex and you don't buy it. The fact is we don't know everything, and we can't do everything under the sun. We are not gods, and your going to have to get that through your thick skull.




top topics



 
31
<< 423  424  425    427  428  429 >>

log in

join