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.
It looked obvious to me.
Well I figured
You should pay more attention to your sources before you go about "figuring" things.
a link with the time showing the darwin book open would have been good enough.
Except the video you linked to not only doesn't show "the darwin book" (more on that in a moment) but it never even mentions the name Darwin. So, no, it's not good enough. You're just continuing to prove that you don't even research or really pay attention to your own sources.
Well like I said his book is open, showing title, page and chapter on one side and the quote on the left. Good enough for me.
... the darwin book ...
Uh, which Darwin book are you talking about? You are aware that he published a few dozen during his lifetime, right? And they're all in the public domain, so finding them and vetting your source that you keep paraphrasing should be trivial for someone as skilled in the fine art of investigation as you are, no?
I'll continue waiting for you to show some intellectual integrity and provide the original quote by Darwin and it's source.
The only difference is mine are all gearing toward intervention without realizing it. Yours are all about evolution to begin with.
Well when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye are all saying the same thing, I don't think its a leap of faith. Evolution with out proof is a leap of faith, a giant one.
So what makes these sources more valid than the numerous scientists that say the same thing? That thing being that evolution is fact. You have listed four sources, each of which has shown to be wrong on multiple counts. I on the other hand could list countless sources that support evolution that haven't been discredited by any peer-reviewed papers. I admit that some of these might not be applicable, but the majority of them should be. So, if being right is based on the number of sources saying the same thing I think evolution wins
How do you know what I felt? You do like coming to conclusions without any evidence to back it up dont you.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
I didn't say for laziness, I said because you allready felt you were doing your part.
Are you really as dense as you are appearing?
Ask yourself if a person makes a decission to travel by a less poluting form of transport for that reason rather than a private vehicle would that same person then litter his enviroment for no other reason than lazyness?
This sort of nonsense only devalues your input into this discussion even lower than it is now. If you cannot work out the direct answer to you question then I believe you have been shown to be wrong yet again as you have no ability to stand back and see the bigger picture. In fact your are blinded by your fantasy.
Yes there are plenty of natural things that pollute water and they are dangerous to man and animal alike which is one of the points I have been trying to get over to you for many pages.
It's a good thing these are not normal in our drinking water.
Your very wrong again. You are the one who for some unknown reason is now talking about redundant tools. Your first comment was about using tools to make tools. That is what I answered and you changed the goalpost without addressing my reply.
Your strawman argument of redundant tools caused from more sophisticated needs is pure strawman.
I am at a loss to understand how you cannot comprehend what is proof and what is heresay. You have had the differance explained to you so many times. Lets try one more time in a simple form but I know I will regret this.
Actually they have provided tons of proof and you still choose to not believe, I think thats called being incredulous.
Here you go again, the same old dance. You never asked that so that was not what the list I gave answered. I will quote you again.
There is no such species that depends on man to survive from birth, and if you gave me any, I didn't get them.
That is a very different question than the one you are now putting forward to try to say I never answered you when I plainly did. You just cannot accept you were shown wrong again and now I have shown you are wrong here too.
Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,
No. You need to explain why the bushman lives in a way you maintain cannot happen. Again you are dancing around the example because you cannot explain it without major damage to the nonsense you are promoting.
Well then you need to contact the medical community and let they know they have it all wrong and you have it all right.
A common response from you when you have no answer. You acuse me of being incredulous?
I guess I missed that one too.
Well havent you come a long way. You show me yours and I will show you mine.
Well seeing how your the one that believes in theorys that have no proof to back them up, I guess you might say we both aren't on the same page.
What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.
Do you really think humans were suppose to drink nasty water?
It's a good thing these are not normal in our drinking water.
Yes there are plenty of natural things that pollute water and they are dangerous to man and animal alike which is one of the points I have been trying to get over to you for many pages.
Well thats because we were also talking about monkeys making tools.
Your very wrong again. You are the one who for some unknown reason is now talking about redundant tools. Your first comment was about using tools to make tools. That is what I answered and you changed the goalpost without addressing my reply.
Exactly so how is it with evolutionism, you are able to believe in something you can't see?
I am at a loss to understand how you cannot comprehend what is proof and what is heresay. You have had the differance explained to you so many times. Lets try one more time in a simple form but I know I will regret this.
I tell you I have a football. I tell you it is five years old. Until you see the ball you do not know for a fact I have one. Until I show you the sale reciept you cannot confirm it is five years old. The ball and the reciept are evidence. Me telling you I have one is not.
Wrong, Pye has tampered DNA,which in itself is intervention and additionally matches parts of the bible Sitchen has DNA work in history and proof of intervention. Von Daniken has intervention, and proof of advanced technology in biblical times. The proof is on the table, some of which can't be seen. Unlike evolutionism, you have no excuse for not having proof. All life that has evolved as you understand it, is from here, so where are the bones? Where is your proof? So many things are suppose to be evolving, why do we not see it going on either in the early, mid or final stages? Why do we not have intermediate species? Why does other life also leave no bones of intermediate species or any type of trangression? Simple, its not happening.
Pye, Sitchin and the bible are telling you they have a ball but dont show you it or the reciept. So all you have is faith. Faith is NOT acceptable proof in science. The only one being incredulous here is you and your refusal to understand what is and what is not evidence.
No its my fault, I figured you were smart enough to understand the background of the question.
There is no such species that depends on man to survive from birth, and if you gave me any, I didn't get them.
Here you go again, the same old dance. You never asked that so that was not what the list I gave answered. I will quote you again
I look at it more like you doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.
Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,
That is a very different question than the one you are now putting forward to try to say I never answered you when I plainly did. You just cannot accept you were shown wrong again and now I have shown you are wrong here too.
The only reason the bushman makes it in fair terms is because he does not have contact with large amounts of other people. People are sickness carriers.
Well then you need to contact the medical community and let they know they have it all wrong and you have it all right.
No. You need to explain why the bushman lives in a way you maintain cannot happen. Again you are dancing around the example because you cannot explain it without major damage to the nonsense you are promoting.
Thats not what incredulous means.
I guess I missed that one too.
A common response from you when you have no answer. You acuse me of being incredulous?
At least there are good reasons why some proof is lacking on my part, whats your excuse?
Well seeing how your the one that believes in theorys that have no proof to back them up, I guess you might say we both aren't on the same page.
Well havent you come a long way. You show me yours and I will show you mine.
You are a dead loss arent you.
Do you really think humans were suppose to drink nasty water?
No we was not. You brought that out later. You are not going to answer any questions that give you pause for thought are you. So why bother.
Well thats because we were also talking about monkeys making tools.
I can. I can also read the evidence to confirm what I see. I knew giving you an example would be a waste of time. Tell me again what is it that pye, sitchen and the bible offer. Facts or hersay?
Exactly so how is it with evolutionism, you are able to believe in something you can't see?
Yep your wood from the neck up.
Wrong, Pye has tampered DNA,which in itself is intervention and additionally matches parts of the bible Sitchen has DNA work in history and proof of intervention. Von Daniken has intervention, and proof of advanced technology in biblical times. The proof is on the table, some of which can't be seen. Unlike evolutionism, you have no excuse for not having proof. All life that has evolved as you understand it, is from here, so where are the bones? Where is your proof? So many things are suppose to be evolving, why do we not see it going on either in the early, mid or final stages? Why do we not have intermediate species? Why does other life also leave no bones of intermediate species or any type of trangression? Simple, its not happening.
It is your fault. You are a liar and a fraud. Thats a choice you have made.
No its my fault, I figured you were smart enough to understand the background of the question.
See above. You refuse to debate on any level. Your a waste of time pal.
I look at it more like you doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.
A great example. You have not addressed how the bushman survives despite all the nonsense you spout that if true would mean they cannot. Your argument is bankrupt as is your reputation.
The only reason the bushman makes it in fair terms is because he does not have contact with large amounts of other people. People are sickness carriers.
What this, you know the meaning of something? surely not.
Thats not what incredulous means.
I know what those good reasons are. You have no proof to offer at all. my proof start from page one of this thread and work your way forward but I would stop at the point you joined it as there is nothing new past your first post.
At least there are good reasons why some proof is lacking on my part, whats your excuse?
No thats not it, but still a good one. Sounds like reporduction.
Inthetooth,
Or is this there quote your looking for?
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."~ Charles Darwin
What year, and with what evidence did this happen?
Attempting to attack or discredit Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with modern day evolutionary theory. Remember in the other thread I mentioned that Darwinism is bad terminology, because it creates a strawman, which is exactly what everybody's working with here. It doesn't matter if Darwin was the biggest scumbag on the planet, his theory ended up being correct, and has been thoroughly backed up by modern biology, genetics, fossil finds, and is applied in medicine today.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium
Before going to bed I would like to put a thought for you to ponder on.
During times of comparative stability all niches are occupied by established animals. The evolution that takes place is gradual and contained within the species. A newly emerging species would have little to no chance to get established because it is a late runner as it were. All the beds are taken
At times of extinction level events where numbers have been drastically reduced many vacant and newly formed niches accelerate evolution. These vacant and new opportunities with little to no competition allows speciation to take place. This can be seen in the fossil records. The flip from dinosaur to mammal domination after the extinction level event as an example.
Given that numbers would be low and change fast (relatively) I do not find it unbelievable not to have a fossil for every single change.
edit on 9-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)