Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Also add to your list that scientists making empty claims by stating a PERSONAL OPINION isn't the same as them presenting a well backed up scientific theory
It's no longer a personal opinion when to many others are sharring it.




To give an example: Einstein could claim that god exists...but that would be a general personal (!!) statement of belief that isn't backed up by objective evidence. On the other hand, his theory of relativity is backed up by objective evidence, and therefore credible. BIG difference!
You mean unlike the theory of evolution
.




Of course a lot of creationists simply ignore this and continue to use argumentative fallacies like the argument from authority
Of course you have to totally ignore the documented history along with it, I think your fighing an uphill battle, evolution doesn't have any help like this.




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It's no longer a personal opinion when to many others are sharring it.


The plural of personal opinion is personal opinions, not evidence.




Of course you have to totally ignore the documented history along with it, I think your fighing an uphill battle, evolution doesn't have any help like this.


Evolution has over a century's worth of published evidence to support it. The only uphill battle being fought on the side of evolution is the one wherein evolutionary biologists try to convince creationists that really and truly, evolution is a real phenomenon.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





It's no longer a personal opinion when to many others are sharring it.


It doesn't matter how many people make a claim, all that matters is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that back up those claims. And in the case of intervention there is none. You should really read up on "scientific method" because you clearly don't understand what evidence or facts mean





You mean unlike the theory of evolution


The theory of evolution is fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively applying the theory. So your comment is laughably uneducated





Of course you have to totally ignore the documented history along with it, I think your fighing an uphill battle, evolution doesn't have any help like this.


What documented history?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 





Evolution has over a century's worth of published evidence to support it. The only uphill battle being fought on the side of evolution is the one wherein evolutionary biologists try to convince creationists that really and truly, evolution is a real phenomenon.
That would be because they aren't interested in being convinced, they are more interested in the facts and there is little to nothing when it comes to evolution.

Besides why is just an argument against creationists, I'm not a creationist but I don't believe in it.




The plural of personal opinion is personal opinions, not evidence.
Not when those opinions are based on seperate facts that all say the same thing.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It doesn't matter how many people make a claim, all that matters is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that back up those claims. And in the case of intervention there is none. You should really read up on "scientific method" because you clearly don't understand what evidence or facts mean
Actually there is a lot of it, historical documentation from the bible says that intervention was how we got here, Von daniken agrees, Pye agrees, and sitchen agrees, now are you going to tell me that you have single handedly proven all of them wrong and your right?




The theory of evolution is fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively applying the theory. So your comment is laughably uneducated
That cracks me up everytime you say that because the only thing that is being applied in medical science is how viruses and bacteria adapts to medican. As I keep explaining, there is no proof that adaptation is even part of evolution, it just sounded good to include it so thats what someone did.




What documented history?
The bible is documented histoy, There are even historical land marks that have obvious alien background in various parts of the world, as explained in the movie charriots of the gods. You seriously need to get out more.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
That would be because they aren't interested in being convinced, they are more interested in the facts and there is little to nothing when it comes to evolution.


This right here demonstrates how little you understand the scientific field. Science is 100% about adapting our knowledge and working models of nature as new evidence is brought to light. If something once thought correct proves to be wrong at a later time, then the model is changed to suit. Sometimes that change takes time and other times it is instant. The working theory of atomic structure in the early to mid 1900's is a great example of this.

The thing about evolution is that there is an overwhelming amount of literature to support its existence; it isn't just one guy harping on about a pet theory he thought up while making a sandwich one say. Maybe evolution is an incorrect model, but all signs point to that not being the case. Extraordinary claims such as the ones you are making (i.e., that evolution is not real) requires extraordinary evidence.


Besides why is just an argument against creationists, I'm not a creationist but I don't believe in it.


It's an argument against anyone who still somehow thinks that scientists are peddling misinformation about something as fundamental as evolution. I named creationists as they tend to be the majority of dissenters.



Not when those opinions are based on seperate facts that all say the same thing.


You have facts now?


Originally posted by itsthetooth
Actually there is a lot of it, historical documentation from the bible says that intervention was how we got here, Von daniken agrees, Pye agrees, and sitchen agrees, now are you going to tell me that you have single handedly proven all of them wrong and your right?


The bible? Are you serious? It doesn't matter how many people think that the bible is accurate, scientific literature and the evidence therein trumps the fantasy tales of written by historians well after the fact every single time. Do you have a logical alternative explanation for tens of thousands of papers authored by tens of thousands of research groups across the globe that say evolution is real? Have you even read any of them, or are you just taking the word of the various crackpots you apparently ascribe your beliefs to?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 





The thing about evolution is that there is an overwhelming amount of literature to support its existence;
Are you suggesting I flood people with literature about intervention?




it isn't just one guy harping on about a pet theory he thought up while making a sandwich one say. Maybe evolution is an incorrect model, but all signs point to that not being the case. Extraordinary claims such as the ones you are making (i.e., that evolution is not real) requires extraordinary evidence.
The perponderance of doubt is placed on you, not on me.




It's an argument against anyone who still somehow thinks that scientists are peddling misinformation about something as fundamental as evolution. I named creationists as they tend to be the majority of dissenters.
Of course you never looked at it like they are simply the hardest to fool.




The bible? Are you serious? It doesn't matter how many people think that the bible is accurate, scientific literature and the evidence therein trumps the fantasy tales of written by historians well after the fact every single time. Do you have a logical alternative explanation for tens of thousands of papers authored by tens of thousands of research groups across the globe that say evolution is real? Have you even read any of them, or are you just taking the word of the various crackpots you apparently ascribe your beliefs to?
So in other words, what you are saying is that you don't comprehend the definition of the catagory of the bible which explains why scientific boundries can't test the events in the bible.

The bible is a book about supernatural events...


su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

Supernatural

So as you can your wrong, simply by calling the book about being fantasy, the catagory of the book explains why it reveals the things that it does, and why those things are not testable in the scientific community.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I have better things to do than argue with brick walls, so I'll leave you to your willful ignorance and hope that the people you try and convince have the better sense to go and read things with a more skeptical mind than you seem to be able to do.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I have better things to do than argue with brick walls, so I'll leave you to your willful ignorance and hope that the people you try and convince have the better sense to go and read things with a more skeptical mind than you seem to be able to do.



It's like talking to a religiously brainwashed child



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 





I have better things to do than argue with brick walls, so I'll leave you to your willful ignorance and hope that the people you try and convince have the better sense to go and read things with a more skeptical mind than you seem to be able to do.
I think your the first person to understand the definition, kudos to you man.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
As I keep explaining, there is no proof that adaptation is even part of evolution, it just sounded good to include it so thats what someone did.


Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true. Evolution is a label, it's not a magical external process. It's what we use to describe the observed change in an organism over time caused by genetic mutations and natural selection. It's funny that after all this time you still don't even understand the very basics of evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...


In adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. An adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals.


It says it right there in the first few sentences of the adaptation wiki. It is absolutely part of natural selection and evolution. I can't believe you are still spreading blatant lies after all this. Deny Ignorance!!!
edit on 15-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


If you can't beat them with facts (and he obviously can't), all that's left are empty claims and made up words


Not sure if I should be mad at him for trying to dumb down people or if I should pity him because he believes all the obvious nonsense he posts...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true. Evolution is a label, it's not a magical external process. It's what we use to describe the observed change in an organism over time caused by genetic mutations and natural selection. It's funny that after all this time you still don't even understand the very basics of evolution.
Your definition proves there is no proof that adaptation is part of evolution, just that they claim it to be.




It says it right there in the first few sentences of the adaptation wiki. It is absolutely part of natural selection and evolution. I can't believe you are still spreading blatant lies after all this. Deny Ignorance!!!
I'm well aware of this, what I keep saying is that there is no proof adaptation is part of evolution, they just claim it to be.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Dude give it up.
You’re not converting anybody here. You could have 50 reasons why evolution is wrong, and someone will find 51 reasons why evolution is right. It’s like walking up to a brick wall and starting a conversation. Facts can always be made to fit any point of view. Example man has 90% same DNA as a chimp because of a common…

… designer...

(Or you can say)
… ancestor...

...Thus (insert your belief) is correct.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 





Dude give it up.
You’re not converting anybody here. You could have 50 reasons why evolution is wrong, and someone will find 51 reasons why evolution is right. It’s like walking up to a brick wall and starting a conversation. Facts can always be made to fit any point of view. Example man has 90% same DNA as a chimp because of a common…

… designer...

(Or you can say)
… ancestor...

...Thus (insert your belief) is correct
Well I wasn't really looking to convert anyone. I have refrained from spewing out tons of evidence and proof on this thread because those in debate have allready known what I have presented, and it all stands firm still to this point. Not a single person has debunked the theory of intervention and not a single person has brought any evidence against target food.

There are however claims, many claims based on nothing, and I see them for what they are.

As an example you brought up the creator versus common ancestor, and one thing that seems to always get pushed off to the side is how we have historical documentation that tells us exactly how we got here, and that earth is not our home.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 





Dude give it up.
You’re not converting anybody here. You could have 50 reasons why evolution is wrong, and someone will find 51 reasons why evolution is right. It’s like walking up to a brick wall and starting a conversation. Facts can always be made to fit any point of view. Example man has 90% same DNA as a chimp because of a common…

… designer...

(Or you can say)
… ancestor...

...Thus (insert your belief) is correct
Well I wasn't really looking to convert anyone. I have refrained from spewing out tons of evidence and proof on this thread because those in debate have allready known what I have presented, and it all stands firm still to this point. Not a single person has debunked the theory of intervention and not a single person has brought any evidence against target food.

There are however claims, many claims based on nothing, and I see them for what they are.

As an example you brought up the creator versus common ancestor, and one thing that seems to always get pushed off to the side is how we have historical documentation that tells us exactly how we got here, and that earth is not our home.




1) We KNOW we have a common ancestor with chimps because it's a proven scientific theory. What we don't know is how life first started and what the first life form(s) was (or were).

2) We DON'T KNOW whether god(s) exist because there is no evidence.

The bible isn't objective evidence just like the Koran isn't objective evidence. Why? Because first of all they are demonstrably wrong in hundreds of cases, and secondly, they only prove what the authors back then believed or wanted to write.

If I draw a smiley face on a piece of metal and drop it with those indians down in Brazil who still live like cave men because they had no contact with modern human...guess what, there's a chance they would start worshipping that thing. Not because that smily face is somehow holy, but because they were UNEDUCATED ENOUGH to not think rationally about what it could be. They don't have the knowledge to understand that it's just a piece of metal, and they don't have the capabilities to ever find out. So guess what, they made something up...and if we don't stop them they would probably go on for a good while.

I'd like to believe we aren't cave men. We should test stuff, look for real objective evidence (aka not "smiley face looks round like sun, sun wants to be worshipped" subjective opinions). And the way to do it is through scientific method, where stuff is backed up by evidence, testable, and re-creatable. That's exactly what evolution is, because we see the same pattern in every single species we tested. And MILLIONS were tested...and the theory holds up.

Cliff notes: Creator nay (at least there's no evidence), evolution yay



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm well aware of this, what I keep saying is that there is no proof adaptation is part of evolution, they just claim it to be.


That's not true. Evolution is the LABEL we use to describe the result of long term adaptation. Adaptation isn't simply a man walking into the woods and building a house with sticks and hunting deer. Yeah, he adapts temporarily, but it is also a long term process that spans thousands of generations.

If you want to suggest evolution does not happen, then you are suggesting that:

A. Genetic mutations do not happen or do not affect the physical traits of an organism
B. Natural selection along with adaptation does not happen over generations

Each statement is backed by peer reviewed studies. Can you show evidence to suggest otherwise? I'm not asking for your opinion or ideas. I'm asking for objective scientific facts. Explain how long term adaptation is possible without genetic mutations.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





1) We KNOW we have a common ancestor with chimps because it's a proven scientific theory. What we don't know is how life first started and what the first life form(s) was (or were).
Why do you lie like that? Just because in your little world you think that man shares a common ancestor with apes doesn't make it a scientific fact
DELUSIONAL to the max.

If that were ever proven, man would have stopped trying to find evidence to support the hair brain theory, but as you can see the search goes on. My proof with intervention is redundant.




2) We DON'T KNOW whether god(s) exist because there is no evidence.
Once again, only in your little fantasy corner of the world. We know its true based on historical documentation, something that evolution has nothing of.




The bible isn't objective evidence just like the Koran isn't objective evidence. Why? Because first of all they are demonstrably wrong in hundreds of cases, and secondly, they only prove what the authors back then believed or wanted to write.
And what supernatural scientist put this to the test?




If I draw a smiley face on a piece of metal and drop it with those indians down in Brazil who still live like cave men because they had no contact with modern human...guess what, there's a chance they would start worshipping that thing. Not because that smily face is somehow holy, but because they were UNEDUCATED ENOUGH to not think rationally about what it could be. They don't have the knowledge to understand that it's just a piece of metal, and they don't have the capabilities to ever find out. So guess what, they made something up...and if we don't stop them they would probably go on for a good while.
How do you expect to convince me that humans today are all knowing when I can't even get you to understand the definition of the word supernatural
.




I'd like to believe we aren't cave men. We should test stuff, look for real objective evidence (aka not "smiley face looks round like sun, sun wants to be worshipped" subjective opinions). And the way to do it is through scientific method, where stuff is backed up by evidence, testable, and re-creatable. That's exactly what evolution is, because we see the same pattern in every single species we tested. And MILLIONS were tested...and the theory holds up.

Cliff notes: Creator nay (at least there's no evidence), evolution yay
You would be wrong again, evolution is NOT testable, its NOT repeatable, its NOT recreatable, its NOT predictable. There is nothing scientific about it. It's not identifiable.


You can't even call it a theory, its not falsifiable either. The only thing that is predictable is adaptation in viruses and bacteria which is far from saying I share a common ancestor with apes
.

I don't think you have realized it but you have made a mountain out of a molehill in this theory. There is not, and never will be anything that proves evolution exists as you relay it to be. If you were correct, we would see the effects all around us from evoution but instead we see the opposite. Most species share very little with others which means that they all had hugh break points with common ancestors.

Dont you think after 150 years that somone would be able to prove a hypothesis once and for all? It only took me a few months to prove that target food was real, and you know as well as I do that a hell of a lot more people have worked on the theory of evolution then they have target food. Evolutionists found a bunch of dots and connected them. Target food found a bunch of facts and connected them. Evolution is not based on any facts, We have never seen anything evolve. No sci fi can be fun but your going to eventually learn that you can't make facts out of nothing. No one has ever proven that species are related, only that we share common DNA which is NOT proof, How do you not know it was a common creator that made all of this? Just because you don't want to believe that was the case, is not proof that it wasn't.

Evolution fails the litmus test for being called a theoy, it stands as a well recognized hypothesis with nothing to support it. Flooding people with gobs if information is not proof that its real. Facts are what make something real.

A good fact about target food for example is that species never experiement with food, its as though they know what they are suppose to eat. I have given you the chance to prove this wrong and you fail without trying, because you know I'm right. Now no one has ever witnessed evolution, thats a fact.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


There is no proof for magic


The only reason you insist it exists is because it's the only way you can rationalise your crazy belief in your mind...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





There is no proof for magic

The only reason you insist it exists is because it's the only way you can rationalise your crazy belief in your mind...
If that were true, the beginning of the bible woudln't be prefaced under the supernatural section.

So as you can see, your wrong again. You have no proof to single handedly disprove the bible or its events, but instead can only turn to the idea that if it's magic thats claimed, prove it to be true. Well this is why I keep giving you the definition of supernatural, these things are not bound to the understanding of science limitations.

The sooner you understand the meaning of the term supernatural, the sooner you will understand the position of the bible rather than dismiss it as fantasy because you didn't understand this to begin with.


su·per·nat·u·raladjective /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 


1.(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
- a supernatural being


2.Unnaturally or extraordinarily great
- a woman of supernatural beauty


noun /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 
supernaturals, plural

1.Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts


Supernatural

Read it again, maybe it will eventually sink in.

Notice how they use the example of ghosts, what a coincidence, they also talk about ghosts in the bible.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join