Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: TzarChasm

Cool

You just made a nice list of threads questioning evolution

That doesn't prove evolution in any way, or even address the op

wasnt trying to address the op, wasnt trying to prove evolution either. its a fools errand to try to make people like you change your mind. its all a game to you, just like every thread in that list i posted. you are not original or clever or fresh. thats the point - you have no point. neither did any of those other threads. a pointless exercise in futility through and through. but its worth mentioning that you havent disproven evolution either. because you cannot. isnt it funny? all this bickering and mockery and childish back and forth and you still cant actually disprove evolution. thats the other thing all of those threads have in common. all the times people have swung and missed, just like you. but dont let that discourage you.

a reply to: TzarChasm



Might have to steal that.... poor donkey! lol

a reply to: Akragon

as i said before, i stole it myself. you can thank solaquarius.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: TzarChasm

Cool

You just made a nice list of threads questioning evolution

That doesn't prove evolution in any way, or even address the op

you havent disproven evolution either.

You haven't proven evolution

But its okay because nobody has done so ever. Not even Darwin (science be upon him)

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: TzarChasm

Cool

You just made a nice list of threads questioning evolution

That doesn't prove evolution in any way, or even address the op

you havent disproven evolution either.

You haven't proven evolution

But its okay because nobody has done so ever. Not even Darwin (science be upon him)

and that is literally the best you have in terms of anti evolution propaganda. its all downhill from there. nearly 20 pages and nothing but "i know you are but what am i?" elementary debate is elementary.

gg no re

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think that is what?? An over generalization, mixed in with a logical fallacy and topped with cherry . Lol

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

Might have to steal that.... poor donkey! lol

I am thrilled to see that since introducing this gif. it is spreading.

Now you all know who to blame if everyone starts using it.

I am patient zero.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Man , just being real, but people don't learn things at the same moment...

The way conspiracy stuff has gone for me is, you learn a cool fact. Then tell everyone you know that new "fact".. then usually find out the new fact isn't new at all and is really just recycled nonsense...


Such as the "can god make a rock , to big for him to lift??"

First time I heard it a couple years ago, I thought it was revolutionary!!

So I post it and and find out it is like centuries old and not even remotely a new counterpoint.

The poster could be someone who figuratively , just read "the divinci code" last week, when everyone else read it 10 years ago..... Just a hair behind the trend..

So though the argument might not be new, it might be new to them..

Just sayin..

a reply to: SolAquarius

It's very good.. if it gets any circulation I bet it sticks!!

Well done.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It is such a great pictorial representation of beating a dead horse.

I was looking for an image to express that idea and I stumbled on the one above among various other static images of people beating a dead horses.

It works so well because it is both adorable and horrifying.

I felt that so many arguments on ATS were dead horse deadlocked arguments. So instead of rehashing the same talking points I decided to find an image to sum up my feelings.

I have already dropped the image in the mudpit where all things infectious mold fester and spread.

I take no credit for creating the image I just found it while travelling the hot jungles of the internet and coughed it up on a thread.

Maybe it will "evolve" into a more virulent meme and one day down the road I will regret my actions.

whether evolutionist, creationist, atheist, dogmatist, or whatever '-ist' a person may be,

"explanations come to an end somewhere", as Wittgenstein so succinctly put it.

ancient history is mostly mystery.

a reply to: Noinden

Did you really just say gravity? You compared something that is directly measurable and testable with EVOLUTION??? There are no gravitists or thermodynamicists because it isn't a belief. It is a directly measurable phenomena.

Evolution is not directly measurable. It is right there with Mandela Effect as a self fulfilling theory. It can't be proven wrong by its very nature. Takes too long to actually measure, it must be extrapolated out in theoretical constructs.

That makes it completely different from thermodynamics and gravity. The theories involved with gravity and thermodynamics are secondary to the actual phenomena. The theory of evolution is the end, beginning and totality of evolution. Which makes it an unfalsifiable belief, making its adherents evolutionists.

Jaden

a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is nothing new under the sun...

Jaden

a reply to: BlackProject

LOL, me thinks you don't understand the word proof. First off, scientific theories cannot be PROVEN. That is an elementary fact of the scientific method.

You can provide evidence supporting them and in some cases, relatively overwhelming evidence. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says that a theory has been proven or calling a theory a fact.

Learn the terms if you want to make an argument. To bring up an old allegory, it's like arguing chess moves with a monkey. If you can't agree on terms and their meanings, there is no point to arguing.

Jaden

a reply to: Phantom423

WHAT IN THE # does this have to do with my comment? They are still working from a partial mandible and a molar...How does that allow them to create a whole creature again? Oh, it doesn't...Oh, it really isn't evidence for the whole creature? oh ok... crawl back under your rock thank you very much.

Jaden

I am studying to be a Biologist in the future, I can say they never claim to be 100% accurate, what they do is look at current animals that are alive and how they are related, for example a reptilian type jawbone is found and they see how modern day reptiles look and act etc. and through inference and currently alive specimens they estimate how an animal would have looked like. Years ago scientists didn't think dinosaurs had feathers, but now they have discovered many species may have had feathers. For all we know dinosaurs could have been neon colors, but based off of the reptiles there are today, they are more likely browns and greens. When it comes to fossils scientists never state that what they infer is 100% correct, but instead accurate depictions of what they might have looked like.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Say they found a molar, and it is very feline like, they then can infer that it came from a feline-like creature. And based on the size of the molar they can estimate the size of the creature etc. They cannot create an entire image of a species based off of one molar, they would have to go and try to find more bones and fossils to help create the overall image of the creature. Scientists don't just find a new fossilized species, and from one tiny fossil they find create the entire image of the creature, they have to search and find other specimens to infer what they looked like and if they are a separate species etc.

a reply to: AlphaDraconianX

exactly, however, in the case of gigantopithecus, the molar is indistinguishable from a human molar except that it is larger.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: BlackProject

LOL, me thinks you don't understand the word proof. First off, scientific theories cannot be PROVEN. That is an elementary fact of the scientific method.

You can provide evidence supporting them and in some cases, relatively overwhelming evidence. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says that a theory has been proven or calling a theory a fact.

Learn the terms if you want to make an argument. To bring up an old allegory, it's like arguing chess moves with a monkey. If you can't agree on terms and their meanings, there is no point to arguing.

Jaden

A scientific theory is better than a fact.

A scientific theory is a collection of facts that lead to only one definitive conclusion, with no definitive evidence against it..

Imho that trumps a fact.

a reply to: Masterjaden

They must have found other fossil evidence of its existence besides a molar though.