Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

iterationzero
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


Again, if you can't reproduce it through experimentation than it is not science.

Being reproducible and being replicable are two different things. I think you're confusing the two based on your statement here. This paper isn't from a biology journal, but it provides a good explanation for the difference between the two.


In reality evolution can't even be observed because it supposedly happens so slowly. It is the perfect scam.

So every transitional species should have existed for hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years yet we can not find a single complete series showing a transformation from one species to the next.
So, It can't be observed and it cant be reproduced. Replicate and reproduce are synonyms. Evolution can't be reproduced or replicated or copied or duplicated etc.




posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Galileo400
reply to post by iterationzero
 

Don't waste your time with beegoodbees, he's stuck in his dogma and cannot think for himself.


I love how all you people can do is insult me because you can't refute anything I say. All I am hearing out of you guys is "I am right and you are stupid". Rub a few brain cells together present an argument or just admit to yourselves that you don't know what you are talking about and you only believe you are right because that is what you have been taught your whole lives, just like any other religious person.

What is your lack of thought on this.

www.apologeticspress.org...
edit on 25-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


beegoodbees, I know that you’re working hard to crap all over the achievements of real scientist and on the very science that makes your dishonest, inept trolling productions online possible, but with arguments of this quality all you’re doing is stinking up these forums. It begs the question, why would anyone want to discuss anything with you, when you have clearly left reality behind?

Has it ever crossed your mind that many so called “evolutionists” actually have degrees in science and some are even working scientists, while you have a two year certificate of BS from the University of Google and consistently prove yourself to be complete blow-hard on what constitutes science that will not change what it is and why it works, I think its pretty obvious who’s doing the projecting, don’t you?

The fact you think any of your nonsense is credible proves that you are beyond help and I will continue to treat it with the contempt it deserves.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

beegoodbees
So every transitional species should have existed for hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years yet we can not find a single complete series showing a transformation from one species to the next.

Oh really? A and N belong to contemporary species, the rest are in chronological order.




posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

flyingfish
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


beegoodbees, I know that you’re working hard to crap all over the achievements of real scientist and on the very science that makes your dishonest, inept trolling productions online possible, but with arguments of this quality all you’re doing is stinking up these forums. It begs the question, why would anyone want to discuss anything with you, when you have clearly left reality behind?

Has it ever crossed your mind that many so called “evolutionists” actually have degrees in science and some are even working scientists, while you have a two year certificate of BS from the University of Google and consistently prove yourself to be complete blow-hard on what constitutes science that will not change what it is and why it works, I think its pretty obvious who’s doing the projecting, don’t you?

The fact you think any of your nonsense is credible proves that you are beyond help and I will continue to treat it with the contempt it deserves.


At least I have presented an argument instead of just hurling insults. The fact that you have no case to present speaks volumes.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
So every transitional species should have existed for hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years yet we can not find a single complete series showing a transformation from one species to the next.

Oh really? A and N belong to contemporary species, the rest are in chronological order.





That is quite a collection of ape and human skulls. You have just proven variation! I can prove that buy looking at more than one person or animal of the same species at a time and observing that they are not identical. Furthermore we see it in the different kinds of cats, dogs and other animals. Great variations of the same species. This of course is possible because the variations are all already in the "junk" dna. Animals were made to adapt with many possible variations being possible to enable that end.
At least you have presented something though.


Here is the text that is posted under your photo on the website where I located it at. First admission is that the photo is misleading and I am sure it was intended to be so that it could be used to fool the unwitting.

"Now the photo is slightly misleading in that it suggests a steady progression from chimps to humans. This is not how evolution happened. The chimp and human lineages split about 5-7 million years ago and so predate the above photo. The chimp skull is just there for reference. The comparisons should really be studied from B-N, that is from Australopithecus to humans. A similar diagram could be made tracking the evolution to the modern day chimp, but the differences may be less obvious. In fact, at a glance, the modern chimp skull is actually quite similar to Australopithecus (although there are many differences, look at the eye sockets).

Another thing to point out is that these particular skulls may not have belonged to individuals that were direct ancestors of modern humans, they may well have been on other branches on the hominid evolutionary tree (see picture below). This is not really a problem though, as it is simply like comparing similarities between aunts, uncles and cousins, instead of directly comparing parents and offspring. The point being that comparisons can still be informative and a range of transitional features from modern day chimps to modern day humans is evident, indicative of common ancestry. Of course, the fact still remains that many of the species above could have belonged to populations that were direct ancestors of modern day humans."

All of that is fine but only if you already believe that it happened. If it were being viewed unbiasedly the assumptions begin to point themselves out. Either that picture was designed to be misleading it seems. Arbitrarily saying "This one is human, this one is ape" just to make it fit into what you already "know" is a big problem for me. They date the skulls based on where it looks like it should fit into the preexisting model. This is not science. Dating fossils based on layers and dating layers based on fossils I also have a problem with.

Something else to consider. Blatant dishonesty or just more jumping to conclusions.


Australopithecus AfarensisafarensisHuman Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

If one were to take 5 skulls from each country in the world one would see great variations that might make one believe that they are from different species or evolutionary steps, but that would not be true now would it.

Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, I am in a hurry today.
edit on 26-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
"Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!" Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey.

"There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies." Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was.

"`We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? `Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


On a side note, where did that photo originate and is it real? Are some of those skulls plastic or is it just me? All black background, probably not a photo but a computer compilation possibly, not that it matters.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


actually, at both ends of the universe are restaurants. one is called milliways and the other is the big bang breakfast bar. that is according to the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy!


seriously though. one is faith. god spoke and said it was so. so it must be true. we do not question how god did it. he other is science that tests it's theories and asks why and how it these things happen. and even though i do go to church, i do believe in science and the scientific method.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
So every transitional species should have existed for hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years yet we can not find a single complete series showing a transformation from one species to the next.

Oh really? A and N belong to contemporary species, the rest are in chronological order.




Even If we take that photo seriously and believe all assumptions, there should still be many many more transitions in between each of those skulls. Don't you think? Even Darwin said there should be millions of transitional species right? At least between H and N there is a lot missing. Since A-G are very similar and are probably variations of one or two similar species. That is what observation is telling me without making any assumptions.

Also, the chronological order is determined by how they fit the model and not by any tangible dating system in many cases.

I'll bring up carbon 14 before you do. How does one know how much carbon 14 was in a sample to begin with. Anticipating your answer I ask this. Aren't we assuming that the gravitational, magnetic, solar and other forces known and unknown have remained unchanged for billions of years in order to draw these conclusions?
edit on 26-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
edit on 26-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
www.eutimes.net... ird-evolution/reply to post by beegoodbees
 


This seems to point out some of the seemingly obvious problems with the theory in general.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
So every transitional species should have existed for hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years yet we can not find a single complete series showing a transformation from one species to the next.

Oh really? A and N belong to contemporary species, the rest are in chronological order.




OK, I wasn't going to say it but I think I have to. You have to be pretty gullible and or stupid to believe that this represents a complete chain of evolution from one species to another.

A few skulls that look similar but different is far from a complete chain especially since some of them seem to be devolving at times. Where is the link between H and I? Where is the link between K and L?

Why do long pointy canine teeth just disappear? I know why. Because apes and monkeys have long canines but humans do not.

Note how this picture doesn't even show the chimp as having long pointy canines in order to make it look more like the other ones. Yeah, this is honest factual science all right.


There are so many ways to poke holes in anything you can offer up that I'm afraid the time constraints of a human lifetime may prevent me from being as thorough as I would like.
edit on 26-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Now your an expert in Anthropology? Could you please direct us to some of your work, have you published any of it? You should be up for a Nobel with all these great finds of yours.


Of course not!

It's called The Gish Gallop. and any halfwit can see your employing this dishonest tactics just by looking at your posts on this thread.


The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.
The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."


In other words all you are doing is spouting crap, a sophomoric Gish Gallop at best. If you bother to look at some of the real paleoanthropological data, rather than rejecting it all automatically as fraudulent, you might be surprised at how consistent it is, and how it actually does contribute to a coherent understanding of our past. And the more recent genetic data fits right in as well. You can pick on a few examples, such as Piltdown, but that was corrected over 60 years ago!

You accepted without bothering to check a standard creationist lie. That lie is all over the interwebs, You don't seem to realize that creationist and fundamentalist websites are full of these deliberate lies. Your arguments lose all creditability by blindly accepting them and passing them on. All of your posts reflects this uncritical acceptance as well.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

flyingfish
Now your an expert in Anthropology? Could you please direct us to some of your work, have you published any of it? You should be up for a Nobel with all these great finds of yours.


Of course not!

It's called The Gish Gallop. and any halfwit can see your employing this dishonest tactics just by looking at your posts on this thread.


The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.
The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."


In other words all you are doing is spouting crap, a sophomoric Gish Gallop at best. If you bother to look at some of the real paleoanthropological data, rather than rejecting it all automatically as fraudulent, you might be surprised at how consistent it is, and how it actually does contribute to a coherent understanding of our past. And the more recent genetic data fits right in as well. You can pick on a few examples, such as Piltdown, but that was corrected over 60 years ago!

You accepted without bothering to check a standard creationist lie. That lie is all over the interwebs, You don't seem to realize that creationist and fundamentalist websites are full of these deliberate lies. Your arguments lose all creditability by blindly accepting them and passing them on. All of your posts reflects this uncritical acceptance as well.



Still not rebuttal and more insults. Pathetic. If I am spouting lies than prove it. By fundamentalist websites are you referring to talk origins which is a fundamentalist website that is full of lies and false conclusions. Put up or shut up!



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Well I was reading the analogy under the impression the you in the story is an adult human. An adult human standing in a 20 inch by 20 inch room would only have to lean slightly to the side and touch a wall (that is if their shoulders don't already scrape the sides). Though regardless of that, we are offtopic. I didn't really want to start a full discussion about fitting in a tiny room.


This is just silly now.
Why does the voice in my head that is narrating this thread sound like the same narrator from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy???

Seriously...it does.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

beegoodbees
They date the skulls based on where it looks like it should fit into the preexisting model. This is not science. Dating fossils based on layers and dating layers based on fossils I also have a problem with.

That's what you want to believe because these skulls are indisputable evidence against Christian creation. Anyway, what you wrote is a lie. For example, the G-skull is this one. You can read about how it was dated here.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Thats good info to have before striking out on the journey .Saves on the time it would take to pack a lunch .I wonder if they have take out .



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 





Still not rebuttal and more insults. Pathetic. If I am spouting lies than prove it.


I have... It doesn't matter how much you squeal and wiggle around the arguments given to you showing that you are wrong, any argument based on a false assumption is de facto invalid and not worth consideration.




By fundamentalist websites are you referring to talk origins which is a fundamentalist website that is full of lies and false conclusions. Put up or shut up!


↑ Here's your "proof" of lies right here ↑

Your a waste of time, you don't even know what a fundamentalist is.


Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.
[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.


Unfortunately for you, you have this whole flimsy religion-based scenario that requires you to downplay science. You don't understand the differences between biology and geology or physics, apparently under a delusion that it is all part of a vast conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Just because you say it is proof does not make it so. You could try closing your eyes while repeating that and clicking you heals together I suppose.

Evolution is a religious belief and therefore talk origins is a religious fundamentalist (dishonest) website.

I have presented at least a dozen valid points to which you can't or won't answer. You remind me of a preacher when shown a bible verse that contradicts his doctrine. He will ignore that verse and try to point to one that he thinks supports his doctrines.

Your absurdity was fun at first but now it is just redundant and boring. Yaaaaaawn.

edit on 27-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join