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.

 

why I hate evolution..

page: 18
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by iIuminaIi

Evolution as fact and theory ?

Fact and theory are not synonymous , for instance you can't say negative is positive and vice-versa, dodgy weaki's nowadays !

Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Understand the meaning of both these terms and it will become clear how evolution is both.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 


I suggest you actually read the article before posting...mostly because everything you just said is clearly wrong, and if you had read the article completely, you'd know that.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


Someone is still trying to argue and doesn't understand the unemotional idea of debate.



ALSO THIS!


The ancient bee shares some traits with its modern relatives but is also quite unlike any other known bee

National Geographic



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
You have refuted nothing I’ve said in last 17 pages, it’s getting danced around.

No, you continue to wallow in your own ignorance with your fingers firmly in your ears. We know that absolutely nothing we say will ever budge you from your position of ignorance as your stance is entirely dogmatic so it's largely for the benefit of more open minded readers who may be interested in evolution and why creationist claims are utter bunkum.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
one last thing before I cut out, I love how the post are dancing around the V=ma thing I wrote this morning, yet nobody is debating the other content, like not getting DNA off those fossils which you all said they did.
BTW V=ma doesn't work at relativistic speeds, that was the debate at the time.

ok yall have fun bashing this post now


DNA analysis fully confirms evolution for millions of years back (over 100mil years back to be exact) as this example clearly shows.

But who gives a rat's ass about facts, right?


You know, the thing that pisses me off isn't that you don't know that. Everyone has stuff they have no clue about, myself included. But you come on here and post complete and utter nonsense and don't even bother to do the slightest bit of research before posting. Even worse, you get all bitchy whenever you're clearly proven wrong. Adapt...learn...don't be ignorant for crying out loud!
edit on 20-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: "off"...not "of"...damn Guinness!!


ok I came back and read this It gotta under my skin and had to reply. You have refuted nothing I’ve said in last 17 pages, it’s getting danced around. DNA is not a dating method, if you are saying it is your wrong. The only thing shown in these ambers is all these insects that are around today were here 100 “million” years ago having all the same complexly then as they have now. Here your pointing out something that not even in the favor of evolution…nothing evolved, the bee is still a bee and has been a bee. Do you need billions of years before the bee evolved? To say DNA proved this bee evolution is crazy, and of course the DNA is different, there’s diversity in all DNA its why we are all not the same, but what shown here is not what your theory predicts. It shows a bee didn’t have all these mirco changes, it the same then as today.
Ok I’m done!!


For crying out loud, that ancient bee DNA clearly shows that those bees had DIFFERENT DNA than bees today!!! They weren't the same, so you saying they've always been around is COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE!!

What's even more amazing is that the linked article describes that in great detail...yet as always when facts go against your preconceived notions, you simply ignore it.

99% of the species that ever lived on this planet are now extinct!!

PLEASE at least read the Wiki intro article to evolution, you aren't even getting the basics of the theory.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 


Where's your proof of any of these claims?



You seek proof ? You know Genius ain't anything more than elegant common sense! So If I told you that the device/computer you're using right now to read this post was created itself from nothing after an explosion at a factory you would say I'm affected with madness. But of course, how can a small/large, complex, well organised device/computer which is made perfectly for us to use be made by chance and without any intelligent designer. It's absolutely stupid to say such a thing. But when I say that the Universe and everything in it, with all its beauty and incredibly complex systems which is beyond human comprehension but so perfectly designed and precisely regulated and provides for every one of our needs, was created by an All-Powerful Being, Who is Sustaining this Universe every moment, Who is Most Gracious and Merciful, you say I'm mad? LMAO

edit on 20-6-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 


yourlogicalfallacyis.com...



In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.


Just a simple peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal will do.
edit on 6/20/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 


Take off the "most gracious and merciful" (..
.. )part at the end, and I can almost consider the idea that a source of consciousness or super organism type thing is behind the creation of the universe. But, yeah, evidence when making claims is pretty much expected.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I might even go as far as to say Your logical fallacy is: Personal Incredulity.


Personal Incredulity
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.

Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding of how they work before one is able to properly grasp them; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

edit on 6/20/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 





So If I told you that the device/computer you're using right now to read this post was created itself from nothing after an explosion at a factory you would say I'm affected with madness.


Of course, and rightfully so!


Mostly because compared to the theory of evolution, you couldn't back up your claim with objective evidence



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 





So If I told you that the device/computer you're using right now to read this post was created itself from nothing after an explosion at a factory you would say I'm affected with madness.


Of course, and rightfully so!


Mostly because compared to the theory of evolution, you couldn't back up your claim with objective evidence


COMMON SENSE!

Ofcourse, i can't prove anything neither can you but assume we're all effected with madness!


Offtopic: Enjoy



edit on 20-6-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 





COMMON SENSE!

Ofcourse, i can't prove anything neither can you but assume we're all effected with madness!



Common sense requires logic...and believing in something that is NOT backed up by objective evidence isn't logical. That's why it's called FAITH.

The theory of evolution on the other hand IS logical and fully backed up by objective evidence. That's also why in over 150 years nobody has debunked it, and we're actively applying the theory in modern medicine.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by iIuminaIi
 


Right, because common sense and logic are so veeeeery different.

And what is "common sense" about a spaceman who can snap his fingers and create a planet yet does not or cannot do anything to help babies with AIDS in Africa?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Here is some numbers to crunch, per evolution life started 4000 million years and a bee was found that’s a 100 million years. So 4 billion years we can say a bee is 0% evolved DNA and 4000 million years later today the bee is 100% evolved DNA. That would equal a 97.5% difference in DNA then and now with the bee. Man and chimp is 98% the same, that bee from 100 million years should be as different as man is to chimp. That bee should be look like an equivalent of a bee chimp.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


I didn't understand a word of that. But when a thread gets this long and the OP has understood zero of what he's talking about, and then the conversation turns to talking about about beechimps, it's time for me to shut off my computer for a while.

(p.s., 4000 million years?
)
edit on 20-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


Please stop pulling ideas out of your buttocks and palming them off as coherent arguments. If you can't even be bothered to get in nodding terms with the science you attack, why bother posting at all?

Poe's Law Law in 3.. 2.. 1...
edit on 20-6-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Here is some numbers to crunch, per evolution life started 4000 million years and a bee was found that’s a 100 million years. So 4 billion years we can say a bee is 0% evolved DNA and 4000 million years later today the bee is 100% evolved DNA. That would equal a 97.5% difference in DNA then and now with the bee. Man and chimp is 98% the same, that bee from 100 million years should be as different as man is to chimp. That bee should be look like an equivalent of a bee chimp.

The oldest recognized signs of life have been dated to be about 3.7 billion years old. I don't understand what you mean with 0-100% evolved DNA. I'm 100% certain that nobody has sequenced a genome of a 100 million year old bee. Also, you're assuming that organisms change at constant rate. Why? If a species inhabits a stable niche, why would it change over time? You'd think that after a while natural selection would have more or less optimized it to its niche, and thus there would be no pressure to change into anything else, but instead remain the same. Look at dogs and wolves. Those wolves that were taken in by humans were under an enormous pressure to change (by human selection). Now we have species that look nothing like wolves (which I assume looked more or less the same around the time when dogs were domesticated), because those wolf populations never faced similar selection (they are pretty much optimized to their environment, which has remained more or less constant for 100s of thousands of years).
edit on 20-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElohimJD
I like your horse of reason and logic, but I must admit both of those qualities are subjective and only exist within the individual. What is reasonable and logical to one is irreasonable and illogical to others.

Anyway thanks,

God Bless,


LOL. Where did you go to school? Read up on the logical fallacies and then feel free to come back here and correct your statement above.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


WTF..bee chimps..?


I actually did laugh out loud when I read that, unfortunately I was having a coffee at the time. I do hope you are practicing some creation-evolution comedy routine? Please say yes. If not, in all seriousness it doesn't seem very coherent, it might be time to look into the subject of evolution to get the basics of what it is about...



edit on 20-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Here is some numbers to crunch, per evolution life started 4000 million years and a bee was found that’s a 100 million years. So 4 billion years we can say a bee is 0% evolved DNA and 4000 million years later today the bee is 100% evolved DNA. That would equal a 97.5% difference in DNA then and now with the bee. Man and chimp is 98% the same, that bee from 100 million years should be as different as man is to chimp. That bee should be look like an equivalent of a bee chimp.


You don't even know how different the bee DNA is...so your entire example uses random numbers




top topics



 
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join