It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 4
21
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by SpearMint

Actually, if you think about that logically.

Smalls would = 1 quarter. It takes 4 smalls to = 1 Big

It would take two mediums, one half to = 1 big.

So, I don't see how two smalls = a big when it should = a medium.

---

Gah, this is painful. You skipped an entire rule set to take a short cut to big. :/

You cannot skip mediums, logically.

The smallest ratio you can get would be one quarter per small. So ....
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:49 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

Actually, if you think about that logically.

So smalls would = 1 quarter. It takes 4 smalls to = 1 Big

It would take two mediums, one half. To = 1 big.

So, I don't see how two smalls = a big when it should = a medium.

---

Gah, this is painful. You skipped an entire rule set to take a short cut to big, :/

----

Night.
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

What the hell are you talking about...

Cut it in to as many fractions as you want, if you keep adding something small you'll get something big. I used 2 because I thought it would be simpler for you but it appears to have gone over your head.

Small * 453212 = big, if you want. Small steps in evolution will eventually add up to a big step.

Small + small = medium. Medium + medium = big. It still makes perfect sense.

Wow, I can't believe you've made the concept of 1 + 1 so complicated... You're really grasping at straws here.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:52 AM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint

The word theory within science is so complicated and wage you need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to interpret the exact meaning.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Or look at wikipedia.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

There are some key words in there that should be paid attention to.

Have science observed and tested evolution to fulfill the requirements you just presented?

I would say that science is still trying to meat their own definition when it comes to evolution. That is a totally different thing.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint

The word theory within science is so complicated and wage you need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to interpret the exact meaning.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Or look at wikipedia.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

There are some key words in there that should be paid attention to.

Have science observed and tested evolution to fulfill the requirements you just presented?

Yep!

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:53 AM
reply to post by SpearMint

Just trying to point out the formula you wanted to use wouldn't exactly work.

If I remember correctly, you are looking for p squared plus two pq plus q squared.

----

And no it hasn't.

edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:57 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

Just trying to point out the formula you wanted to use wouldn't exactly work.

If I remember correctly, you are looking for p squared plus two pq plus two squared.

I.. oh wow. I'm actually speechless. I'm not after any formula, I'm trying to explain the VERY simple concept that if you keep adding up something small, you'll eventually get something big. It's not hard, in fact I don't think pre-school bothers to cover that.

Hurry up and go to bed like you said you were, you don't know how painful this is.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:58 AM
omgg that was a funny movie..

but...

peanut butter was created of life, I mean the peanuts were "life" once.

evolution theory never claimed the building blocks were dead life right?

sigh

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by SpearMint

I was wrong it is q squared. Not two squared.

Anything that falls under Chaos Mathmatics is highly ...... theoretical, and shouldn't be in the form of a Scientific Theory but a Hypothesis.
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

I was wrong it is q squared. Not two squared.

Anything that falls under Chaos Mathmatics is highly ...... theoretical, and shouldn't be in the form of a Scientific Theory but a Hypothesis.
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

No, you're still wrong. I can't explain it any simpler. I don't know if you're trying to appear smart, but it's coming off as the COMPLETE opposite. I thought 1 + 1 was a universally understood concept.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:13 AM
reply to post by SpearMint

I didnt think that would blow so far over your head .. anyway. It's 6:00 AM I have to get at least an hour sleep.
edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:21 AM
I haven't watched the video yet but...let it be the peanut butter,,,please let it be the peanut butter. That has always been such an ignorant "proof" for creationism there has ever been.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:40 AM
Ah man!, the party is over....im here too late....

Anyways, in the last 3 pages of retarded rebuttal against evolution by mixing abiogensis and evolution as one, which lots of "Pastorized" people do.

Micro, Macro.... and other types of evolution are just excuses for anti-evolutionist to separate evidence.. this way, they can still live in their denial and feel like a winner. An educated person will not see different types of evolution... its just evolution.

Minor changes will lead to major changes... try letting your domesticated dog to live in the wild... see how long it will survive. By the way domestication is a forced environmental change.. and those small changes from ferocious wolf like creatures to our current dog only took 40,000-50,000 years.
edit on 1/29/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/29/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:23 AM
After watching this video, I feel as if I got dumbder.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:28 AM
Greetings ATS

Ermm.... wierd video , what does the guy with the peanut jar smoke ??
Looks old anyway , video tape quality.

TheGreazel

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:35 AM
Its my opinion both sides of the argument should be taught in school, this way people when they grow up know both sides and can make their own mind up.

Natural selection vs. Intelligent design? Both?

We do "change" over time, however "we" do not change into another species. Not that I have seen, although I think my bf as of this morning is a donkey.

edit on 29-1-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:45 AM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint

The word theory within science is so complicated and wage you need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to interpret the exact meaning.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Or look at wikipedia.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

There are some key words in there that should be paid attention to.

Have science observed and tested evolution to fulfill the requirements you just presented?

Yep!

How can you prove it?

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:45 AM
Evolution is a dying religion.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by Prime80

lol far from it, Religion is a dying trend lol. Evidence supporting Evolution is only going to increase.

Religion was easier to be instilled when people kept their mouth shut and were uneducated. Now even 7-8 yrs old kids are questioning Religion. I live in a wonderful time!

If it weren't for science, everyone would think Thunder is gods anger
.. and earthquake and flood and Tornaders!

No body "follows" Evolution by the way. Just like we don't "follow" gravity.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:52 AM
Who Are You That Is So Wise In The Ways Of Science ?

Its funny .... but then you realize that quite a few people saw this video and bought the nonsense being peddled .

The year is 2013 ....

edit on 29-1-2013 by UmbraSumus because: fix video

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Prime80

lol far from it, Religion is a dying trend lol. Evidence supporting Evolution is only going to increase.

Religion was easier to be instilled when people kept their mouth shut and were uneducated. Now even 7-8 yrs old kids are questioning Religion. I live in a wonderful time!

If it weren't for science, everyone would think Thunder is gods anger
.. and earthquake and flood and Tornaders!

No body "follows" Evolution by the way. Just like we don't "follow" gravity.

There is not much different to day. Keep in mind that you are educated to serve a system. To do that they need to control you opinions and believes. And the system is doing a very fine job at it.

You are more of a servant today than people were before.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

21