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 TheBar
I like to use the evidence i have at hand(literally) that helps back up and prove the primate theory.
Simply move your hand down your back until you reach a bone just just above and between your buttocks. You should be able to feel the Coccyx.
Evolution debunkers care to explain this to me ?edit on 9-11-2011 by TheBar because: (no reason given)
Evolution is not a fact....
It can't be proven as fact until it is observed with 100% accuracy, and stands up to testing - which it can't.
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by Barcs
Then by all means if you feel that way stay out of the thread. I for one, although I disagree with creationists and those who stand against what I think is good evidence for the evolutionary theory, enjoy the back and forth and hearing their views and reasons for them. Your arrogance is disturbing and not beneficial in the least. But of course, that is only my opinion and I could be wrong.
Arrogance? I'm simply reiterating information that has been gathered and studied for over a hundred years. When I say something is a scientific fact, I provide a source. Scientific facts are not arrogant. They are accurate. If you have been reading the thread at all, you'd have noticed the blatant dishonestly and ignoring of science and evidence that's been going on. It would be different if they were civil and actually provided counterpoints or evidence, but not a single one has done anything besides repeat old arguments that have been debunked. If the pursuit and spreading of knowledge is arrogant, then I'm the most arrogant person in the world.
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
I noticed you may not have read far enough in my post to see this, would you please reply to it? It should be easy for someone so smart and able to apply "scientific" reasoning.
I said earlier:
Here's your chance to school me on how science is done: explain to me how those people over seven thousand years ago knew that gold could be suspended in an atmosphere? Could they have nailed it just by coincidence? What a preposterous thing to "just make up" and be absolutely correct! How does your reply match Occam's scrutiny?
You can throw gold grains up in the air...and either way, they also believed the universe is a massive dome surrounded by saltwater with the earth being the centre of this dome. We know for a fact that's not the case, and given that we've known about this for hundreds of years, you can't really claim they're super advanced by today's standards after getting it wrong
They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
It looks like I might be corrected here, they just found proof of a cat evolving.
Check this out.
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bottleslingguy
They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact.
What are you talking about??? There's no gold suspended, and it most certainly isn't a requirement. You might wanna read up on weather manipulation
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.
You still haven't answered me. I was asking where this translation came from, and if anyone else has translated it that way. If only one man sees it as such, then perhaps there is another, more logical explanation?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.
You still haven't answered me. I was asking where this translation came from, and if anyone else has translated it that way. If only one man sees it as such, then perhaps there is another, more logical explanation?
I like your style and agree that more than one source would be better so how about the bible mentioning gold in part of our service?
The bible even mentions this in the index. Gold played a special part in the bible and not just for manufacturing things.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
I do not count the Bible as a source. It is no more an authority than a modern day fairy tale or fantasy novel. It is a collection of different beliefs construed to appear as if it were one. It also has no bearing on science, as has been proven in the past as the church has vigorously defended the Bible science, only to be proven wrong, time and time again.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
I do not count the Bible as a source. It is no more an authority than a modern day fairy tale or fantasy novel. It is a collection of different beliefs construed to appear as if it were one. It also has no bearing on science, as has been proven in the past as the church has vigorously defended the Bible science, only to be proven wrong, time and time again.
Originally posted by steveknows
Originally posted by TheBar
I like to use the evidence i have at hand(literally) that helps back up and prove the primate theory.
Simply move your hand down your back until you reach a bone just just above and between your buttocks. You should be able to feel the Coccyx.
Evolution debunkers care to explain this to me ?edit on 9-11-2011 by TheBar because: (no reason given)
And saying that. Those who don't believe we're a primate might want to feel that coccyx with their opposable thumb. Opposable thumbs are a signature feature of the primate family ->
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
Evolution is not a fact....
Evolution, briefly defined, is a shift in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. This is an observable, testable, verifiable phenomenon. How does that not constitute a fact?
The theory of evolution is a framework that ties together all of the facts and evidence surrounding the phenomenon of evolution.
It can't be proven as fact until it is observed with 100% accuracy, and stands up to testing - which it can't.
If you're referring to the theory of evolution when you say "it" in this context, then I'd agree with the first part of your statement -- it will never be a proven fact. No scientific theory will ever be a proven fact. Facts and theories don't occupy different levels on some hierarchy of information, they serve two totally different purposes and are two totally different constructs.
As far as it being observed, scientific theories aren't observed. The phenomena that are one part of a scientific theory can be. The phenomenon of evolution, as defined above, has been observed.
As far as standing up to testing, scientific theories operate on falsifiability -- they are repeatedly tested and reevaluated in light of new evidence. If the theory of evolution didn't stand up to testing, it would have fallen by now. I'm not even saying that it will never be replaced by another theory that explains biodiversity, but no evidence presented to date has been able to falsify it.
At the same time, if you think we were created by someone, then how could it be possible that we are stranded on a planet that isn't meant for us. There is only one answer, god was NOT our creator. Of course our mtDNA says the same thing. How can we be 200,000 years old when suposedly put us here 7,000 years ago. The only other plausible option here is that he frankenstiened us from other existing life.
Oh so your trying to say that evolution is a PROVEN theory? Can you give us a link that doesn't include statements like "in debate' or "inconclusive?" Cause no one on here has yet.
If you're referring to the theory of evolution when you say "it" in this context, then I'd agree with the first part of your statement -- it will never be a proven fact. No scientific theory will ever be a proven fact. Facts and theories don't occupy different levels on some hierarchy of information, they serve two totally different purposes and are two totally different constructs.