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.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 21
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar
 




Ignorance is overrated as well yet this thread keeps on keeping on.


And the skeptic is the last man standing.

It only makes sense that it takes a true skeptic to stop the smack talk of a motley crew of scientific fundamentalists.
It is much easier to invalidate a theory than create one.

The burden of proof is on y'all folks. All I gotta do is sit back and easily shoot the proverbial ducks on the proverbial pond. I don't think that I used the word proverbial correctly. I can't think of a single proverb about shooting ducks on a pond.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Yip, not only do you not understand evolution you fail to grasp logic. For all you keep banging on about logic and fallacies you've even admitted as much.

See your above quote where you say the burden of proof is on us evolutionists? Basically you're arguing against something (evolution) with an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject. You then proceed to shift the onus (or "burden" to use your words) of proof on us evolutionists. That's what's called a logical fallacy son.

Major, major fail on your part to put it bluntly.




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


Ignorance is bliss...

This topic really serves no purpose. It was started under false statement that OP 'believed' in evolution that through discussion he managed to disprove as being the case. It is more like provocation, but I am unable to see what might be reason for such actions...

More to me looks that someone is doubting his creationist beliefs...



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar
 




Ignorance is overrated as well yet this thread keeps on keeping on.


And the skeptic is the last man standing.

It only makes sense that it takes a true skeptic to stop the smack talk of a motley crew of scientific fundamentalists.
It is much easier to invalidate a theory than create one.

The burden of proof is on y'all folks. All I gotta do is sit back and easily shoot the proverbial ducks on the proverbial pond. I don't think that I used the word proverbial correctly. I can't think of a single proverb about shooting ducks on a pond.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Yip, not only do you not understand evolution you fail to grasp logic. For all you keep banging on about logic and fallacies you've even admitted as much.

See your above quote where you say the burden of proof is on us evolutionists? Basically you're arguing against something (evolution) with an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject. You then proceed to shift the onus (or "burden" to use your words) of proof on us evolutionists. That's what's called a logical fallacy son.

Major, major fail on your part to put it bluntly.


No. My reasoning does not contain a logical fallacy.
And I have no burden of proof.
You are promoting a theory. I am not.
The burden of proof is on you. In fact, I have zero burden of proof.

That is why I can say- the Pre-Cambrian explosion invalidates the Darwinian idea of Gradualism, and thus the theory goes with it.
That forces the burden of proof on y'all.
So then enters the idea of punctuated equilibrium, which both invalidates the idea of dating abiogenesis, and is an ad hoc hypothesis logical fallacy.
Unlike your assertion, this is a true logical fallacy, because this supposed theory was created due to a lack of evidence and a faulty original hypothesis. Nothing new was discovered warranting a reformulation of the original hypothesis.

And all I had to do was ask questions.

See!!! No burden of proof!!

I can keep this going mate. Your call.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
That is why I can say- the Pre-Cambrian explosion invalidates the Darwinian idea of Gradualism, and thus the theory goes with it.
That forces the burden of proof on y'all.


If modern humans can diverge from other primates in less than 7 million years why then is it not feasible for less complex organisms to manifest similar diversity within a similar frame if time? You don't think the "Precambrian explosion" was
Just that do you? An overnight event like the
Big Bang? One day single felled organisms the next there's more diversity than the eye can see. Noooooooo. The 'Explosion' took several million years and it is far more plausible than your nonexistent alternate hypothesis.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

peter vlar

kyviecaldges
That is why I can say- the Pre-Cambrian explosion invalidates the Darwinian idea of Gradualism, and thus the theory goes with it.
That forces the burden of proof on y'all.


If modern humans can diverge from other primates in less than 7 million years why then is it not feasible for less complex organisms to manifest similar diversity within a similar frame if time? You don't think the "Precambrian explosion" was
Just that do you? An overnight event like the
Big Bang? One day single felled organisms the next there's more diversity than the eye can see. Noooooooo. The 'Explosion' took several million years and it is far more plausible than your nonexistent alternate hypothesis.


Look at the fossil record. It is called the Cambrian explosion for a reason.

This stuff appeared in such vast number, complexity, and completeness that it is impossible to understand with the present theory other than to call it an explosion.
And if that is true then can anything be dated using recursive algorithms?

Do you not see that?

If you actually know about this stuff then you know that recursive algorithms are used to model evolution.
If this happens in bursts of time... relatively ...then it makes plotting these algorithms near impossible.

And when evolutionary biologists cite evidence to back abiogenesis a lot of it relies on computer simulations, which all relies on valid INPUT information.
Garbage in Garbage out.
If the input information is derived from a model built upon a truly random nature then all input variables become equally as likely making the outcome impossible to predict.

You can't argue this stuff.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   

kyviecaldges

peter vlar

kyviecaldges
That is why I can say- the Pre-Cambrian explosion invalidates the Darwinian idea of Gradualism, and thus the theory goes with it.
That forces the burden of proof on y'all.


If modern humans can diverge from other primates in less than 7 million years why then is it not feasible for less complex organisms to manifest similar diversity within a similar frame if time? You don't think the "Precambrian explosion" was
Just that do you? An overnight event like the
Big Bang? One day single felled organisms the next there's more diversity than the eye can see. Noooooooo. The 'Explosion' took several million years and it is far more plausible than your nonexistent alternate hypothesis.


Look at the fossil record. It is called the Cambrian explosion for a reason.

This stuff appeared in such vast number, complexity, and completeness that it is impossible to understand with the present theory other than to call it an explosion.
And if that is true then can anything be dated using recursive algorithms?

Do you not see that?

If you actually know about this stuff then you know that recursive algorithms are used to model evolution.
If this happens in bursts of time... relatively ...then it makes plotting these algorithms near impossible.

And when evolutionary biologists cite evidence to back abiogenesis a lot of it relies on computer simulations, which all relies on valid INPUT information.
Garbage in Garbage out.
If the input information is derived from a model built upon a truly random nature then all input variables become equally as likely making the outcome impossible to predict.

You can't argue this stuff.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Again, your lack of subject knowledge is very apparent. The problem with the fossils that the Burgess Shale provided is not so much about how they just appeared. The problem is more about what life was like beforehand.

The Burgess Shale is rich in fossils but the event which produced the fossils was localised in an underwater landslide or something similar.

The lack of a any pre-cambrian fossils which might explain why the Burgess Shale is so speciose is not absence of evidence. Gould talks about this in Wonderful Life and suggests that up until that point animals were probably soft bodied as the first predators were still to evolve. As soon as the first predators evolved then there was an explosive radiation of forms as predator-prey food chains developed.

You keep hiding behind a smokescreen of phantom claims and have yet to cite a shred of proof. The burden of proof is on you, you are refuting an accepted theory backed up by overwhelming evidence. Your logic fails you every time you put up a strawman claim.

So it's about time you produced the goods, cite evidence to support your claims.
edit on 27-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





It is just another fad, and next year you will see droves of Christians come on here all touting some new tactic. But right now we have to deal with the "evolution is faith" bunch.


If you believe something without having evidence to validate its truth then you are doing so on faith alone.

And that is exactly what you are doing with Darwinian Evolution.

Good try with the association of my argument with a Christian's argument, because they are as undereducated as the whole lot about my view.
I am simply a skeptic.

I am an actual skeptic, not some neo-skeptic here to promote the status quo party line.


First off let me start by saying there is no Darwinian Evolution. It is just evolution, or biological evolution.

oh there is evidence. But the tactic of the skeptic is to just keep denying it, as if it is a valid argument.

DNA has all the proof of evolution you ever need. If there was no DNA, there would be no evolution.

Saying that evolution is invalid because it doesn't progress like you think it should is one of funnier reasons I have come across yet.

It also shows you have no idea how evolution works. Which is pretty much the case for every skeptic.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar
 




Ignorance is overrated as well yet this thread keeps on keeping on.


And the skeptic is the last man standing.

It only makes sense that it takes a true skeptic to stop the smack talk of a motley crew of scientific fundamentalists.
It is much easier to invalidate a theory than create one.

The burden of proof is on y'all folks. All I gotta do is sit back and easily shoot the proverbial ducks on the proverbial pond. I don't think that I used the word proverbial correctly. I can't think of a single proverb about shooting ducks on a pond.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


*LAUGHS*

The only thing standing is whatever you are imbibing in that makes you think that you have a cohesive, barely lucid, argument, and that you won.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges

peter vlar

kyviecaldges
That is why I can say- the Pre-Cambrian explosion invalidates the Darwinian idea of Gradualism, and thus the theory goes with it.
That forces the burden of proof on y'all.


If modern humans can diverge from other primates in less than 7 million years why then is it not feasible for less complex organisms to manifest similar diversity within a similar frame if time? You don't think the "Precambrian explosion" was
Just that do you? An overnight event like the
Big Bang? One day single felled organisms the next there's more diversity than the eye can see. Noooooooo. The 'Explosion' took several million years and it is far more plausible than your nonexistent alternate hypothesis.


Look at the fossil record. It is called the Cambrian explosion for a reason.

This stuff appeared in such vast number, complexity, and completeness that it is impossible to understand with the present theory other than to call it an explosion.
And if that is true then can anything be dated using recursive algorithms?

Do you not see that?

If you actually know about this stuff then you know that recursive algorithms are used to model evolution.
If this happens in bursts of time... relatively ...then it makes plotting these algorithms near impossible.

And when evolutionary biologists cite evidence to back abiogenesis a lot of it relies on computer simulations, which all relies on valid INPUT information.
Garbage in Garbage out.
If the input information is derived from a model built upon a truly random nature then all input variables become equally as likely making the outcome impossible to predict.

You can't argue this stuff.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Again, your lack of subject knowledge is very apparent. The problem with the fossils that the Burgess Shale provided is not so much about how they just appeared. The problem is more about what life was like beforehand.

The Burgess Shale is rich in fossils but the event which produced the fossils was localised in an underwater landslide or something similar.

The lack of a any pre-cambrian fossils which might explain why the Burgess Shale is so speciose is not absence of evidence. Gould talks about this in Wonderful Life and suggests that up until that point animals were probably soft bodied as the first predators were still to evolve. As soon as the first predators evolved then there was an explosive radiation of forms as predator-prey food chains developed.

You keep hiding behind a smokescreen of phantom claims and have yet to cite a shred of proof. The burden of proof is on you, you are refuting an accepted theory backed up by overwhelming evidence. Your logic fails you every time you put up a strawman claim.

So it's about time you produced the goods, cite evidence to support your claims.
edit on 27-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



This fool is taking a word off his "science word of the day"" calendar that he learned, and trying to build an argument around it. yesterday's was "recursive algorithms." I wonder what today's will be?

Must say, one of the more interesting ways of posting that I have seen on ATS.
edit on 27-11-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


there is one thing that is obvious, I am at the 350 mark in replies... and that sure beats your 158.

Look, if you want to get into a micturating contest over numbers, both SuperFrog and I have a better star-to-post ratio than you do: about 1.4 for each of us compared to your 0.4. Still want to play the quantity over quality game? Didn't think so.


you are welcome to leave, no one is stopping you... after the children do exit this thread it may be able to move on to something?

I think this thread has moved about as far as it's going to. As I pointed out earlier, a long-gone member named Cosmic.Artifact did a vastly superior job in providing evidence for the same claims you're trying to make. He was still wrong, but he at least tried harder than you seem to be willing or able to.


I totally understand that Dawkins is one of your siants of atheism... I am sure that in the mega-church of atheism there are atleast a couple other the atheists hoist upon their shoulders.

I think you're confusing respect and worship. This speaks more about your mindset than that of any atheist. As for Dawkins, which seems to be the only name you know, I find him annoying and overly aggressive. And who canonized him? And what exactly is an "atheist mega-church"? Can you give me the address of one? I'd like to see what a waste of money such a thing would be.


your participation in my thread is not required... it is optional, not obligatory.

That can be said of everyone here, including you.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


is it all I have to do... be mainstream an humdrum, disrespect God and other peoples spirituality and individuality, in order to get a better post ratio?

well that's easy, thanks I'll keep it in mind...



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Post ratios are not the topic. I suggest you get back to it. I know it's a flaming wreckage and all, but maybe you can find some way to salvage what remains of your thread.
edit on 27-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
reply to post by iterationzero
 


is it all I have to do... be mainstream an humdrum, disrespect God and other peoples spirituality and individuality, in order to get a better post ratio?

well that's easy, thanks I'll keep it in mind...


Why is stating science, standing for current findings and arguing that science teaches us about origin and changes of life better then pre-science non-historic book considered disrespect of God, or disrespect of spirituality or individuality?

First of all, I never disrespected others spirituality, belief or religion. But I have no tolerance in making someone's spirituality and religion into 'scientific world' or as viewed here on multiple topics, into science classroom.

Keep your ID science and creationism in your Sunday school - fine with me, but don't bring it into lab or classroom, just as Neil deGrasse Tyson has said in already posted video.

Topic is not about number of replies, stars or flags, its about discussing given topic, and here you demonstrated multiple times that you lack knowledge required for discussion and are opting for provocations rather then discussion.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 



The lack of a any pre-cambrian fossils which might explain why the Burgess Shale is so speciose is not absence of evidence. Gould talks about this in Wonderful Life and suggests that up until that point animals were probably soft bodied as the first predators were still to evolve. As soon as the first predators evolved then there was an explosive radiation of forms as predator-prey food chains developed.


That is all speculation.

I can't believe that you buy that crap from Gould.
It is simply another ad hoc hypothesis.

No fossils exists because they were soft bodied.

How can an explosion happen in evolution?
Explain to me the mechanism.

As I said, it makes all recursive algorithms invalid. And if they are invalid, then there goes ALL your evidence other than the fossil record.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



This fool is taking a word off his "science word of the day"" calendar that he learned, and trying to build an argument around it. yesterday's was "recursive algorithms." I wonder what today's will be?


Wow.... What an impressive violation of the terms and conditions.

Since you seem to understand this concept and I am just using words yoda, tell me.
Explain to me how exactly recursive algorithms are NOT applicable to Darwinian Evolution.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


is it all I have to do... be mainstream an humdrum,

Given your earlier claims that the vast majority of people in the US are theists and creationists, then aren't you really the one preaching the mainstream? Your earlier cries of "majority rules" would seem to indicate that you think you are the mainstream, no?


disrespect God and other peoples spirituality and individuality,

You can't reply directly to any points that I've made, so you'll resort to personal attacks. How very Christian of you. Can you point out where I've attacked anyone's spirituality, attacked anyone's individuality, or disrespected God?


in order to get a better post ratio?

I'm sorry if I made my point too obscure. Let me try to be a little more clear. You were the one who tried to bring post & thread statistics into the discussion as an argument that quantity is equivalent to quality. My only motivation in pointing out that SuperFrog and I have better star-to-post ratios than you was to indicate the opposite -- that quantity doesn't matter. Quality, like presenting evidence to back your claims, is what matters in posts.

You continue to make claims, and more claims, and still more claims... with no evidence to back them up.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I watched the video...I found it interesting, thank you. However, it wasn't about Creationism vs evolutions. It was about Christian/Biblical Creationism vs Evolution. Big Difference. This is about Christians vs Non-Christians. Just like the much Quoted Dawkins in this video...Dawkins was never really God vs Atheism but Christianity vs Atheism. Another big difference. Let's be honest here.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


I appreciate the paragraph style reply, it is how I am used to communicating. I just hate dissecting others comments down line for line, it then always comes down to determining the definitions of the words spoken and what they mean to the individual. It doesn't stop here though no sir, after parties establish definitions, by various sources mind you... we start entering the realm of etymology, which is a long story that I will have to enlighten you on another time... After the etymology is established and the definitions all squared away, we then get down to the good stuff, the linguistics.

I personally didn't view the video much like you... it was the first time I ever seen it or that particular church going fellow. I looked at it much more like a "Silly Stuff Atheists Say" video. I took particular notice of how the topic of evolution was pretty much a confirmer of faith to those who identified themselves as atheist. But once this faith is questioned the walls start burning down around the proponents.

it was pretty good... specially the "green light" example near to the end of the clip.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I want to say that I always reserve a measure of caution when it comes to evolution. It is still not fact. The reality is that it needs more than random "evidence" that can be interpreted in either direction before it is taken out of the realm of being a theory and can be accepted as fact universally.

I am still waiting for transitional fossils or ANY evidence of new traits being "evolved" out of thin air.

That said, I am not entirely against it. I simply DO NOT accept that "it can never be proven"....then guess what, it is not true. It is at that point a faith issue which is based loosely on the interpretations of random evidence sought out and fashioned accordingly to prove a theory that some have invested entire careers , educations, and systems of education in.

Sorry, but thats your problem.

I will NEVER call something a fact until it is proven as such. Until then its a nice idea, and may have SOME truth. Its just not acceptable to me when evolutionists say that it can NEVER be proven one way or the other. If I am to have any faith, in anything, its going to be in something a little more special than a theory others have invested too much in. They jumped the gun. I dont have to.

SO I dont understand the arrogance of the proponents of evolution. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL and logical to doubt this theory. It is still rather lacking. How dare you mock others for not "faithing" an idea into "fact".

How dare you, and you say you love science.



edit on 11 30 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


Umpteen numbers of transitional fossils have been listed/linked to/mentioned on this thread. I suggest that you go back and re-read.




top topics



 
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join