What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Honestly, it's one of the biggest lies I have seen, but I haven't seen it all, so I get your point. Itsthetooth and his posts in the "Can you prove evolution wrong?" might be worse. Peeple's post may have been slightly exaggerated, but Born's post was a lie, nonetheless. The fact that he continues to repeat it over and over again despite evidence being posted numerous times is proof of this. There's nothing abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist about calling somebody out on a lie. Just read the thread from the beginning if you don't believe us, but be forewarned that you will probably be banging your head against the wall by page 20.

a reply to: GetHyped

That is irrelevant to my position. I am saying that I have gotten moderated for far less and this person can be defamatory in a very openly crude manner. Furthermore can you name the top 10 fattest lies on ATS?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I know where they are.....
The Origins and creation forums .
Sorry dude had to do it lol.

a reply to: Barcs

There's nothing abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist about calling somebody out on a lie.

I agree with that. Again for the last time, I am not disputing if it was a lie or not. Do not misunderstand me, I am contending the manner in which it was being said (not going against calling someone out on a lie), and the mannerism that many of you are displaying right now.
I came here to introduce some new, relevant information, and it seems that the current atmosphere is far to hostile to even have a polite, on topic discussion.

You are a liar/ You are lying. (Calling someone out on a lie)

Fair enough.

Ladies and gentlemen this is the biggest lie on ATS

I have been moderated for a lot less than this, and this is being defamatory and slanderous.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: GetHyped

That is irrelevant to my position. I am saying that I have gotten moderated for far less and this person can be defamatory in a very openly crude manner. Furthermore can you name the top 10 fattest lies on ATS?

Whether it is "the biggest lie ever on ATS" or not is more of a question of semantics.

While borntowatch has not specifically told "the biggest lie on ATS", his general manner of posting in this thread is among the most deceitful type of posting on ATS. He calls for evidence to prove that his biblical creationism ideas are not valid, but when people abide and provide him with evidence, he intentionally ignores that evidence, thus claiming that none exists; ergo (according to him) his idea of biblical creationism still makes the more sense than the theory of the evolution of species.

That's intellectual dishonesty, which is one of the biggest types of dishonesty posters on ATS can display.


He also displays intellectual dishonesty by continuing to return to his strawman OP about the term "Evolution". It has been explained that (for example) the "Evolution of the Universe" has nothing at all to the Darwinism theories on how species change over time. It has been explained to him that the use of the general term "evolution" is all they have in common, but that hasn't kept him from repeating that strawman argument he first proposed in his OP.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I'd wager dragging a thread off topic to complain about some insignificant perceived injustice would run the risk of moderation.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I agree with that. Again for the last time, I am not disputing if it was a lie or not. Do not misunderstand me, I am contending the manner in which it was being said (not going against calling someone out on a lie), and the mannerism that many of you are displaying right now.

Like I said, if you read a decent portion of the thread, you would see where the frustration is coming from. The position is exaggerated but justified, IMO. To me, the poster is no different from proven frauds like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham.

I came here to introduce some new, relevant information, and it seems that the current atmosphere is far to hostile to even have a polite, on topic discussion.

Well, in all respect, you did claim that evolution was being expanded to include non life, when this isn't yet the case. It is interesting information, however, and I appreciate that.

You also stated "Science is being corrected yet again.... " which appears to be an attempt to take cheap shots at science insinuating that it is unreliable. That is most likely why your posts were met with strong opposition. Many folks that post in this section work in the field and feel it is extremely important to society, and it is insulting to them to suggest such a thing. If that's not what you meant, you may want to clear it up, because that's how folks took it.

The atmosphere here is hostile because that is the tone that Borntowatch has set by ignoring evidence and being condescending to anybody who rightfully disagrees with the invalid premise that he outlined in the OP, and without engaging in a single logical discussion of the matter, addressing any evidence or even counterpoints to his position. Yet he insists that he is right.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: Barcs

Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest lie ever told on ATS

The biggest lie ever told on ATS...

The biggest lie...

ATS is pretty big...

Is this really okay to be said?

I have been moderated recently for saying far less than this, I said something along the lines of 'the most ignorant thing I have seen thus far''

Not the the most ignorant thing currently on ATS...

ETA: Furthermore this is not in line with the terms and conditions of ATS as outlined in article:

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

To bring this in to context, Answer is making an unfounded claim (biggest lie out of 18,918,600 posts) that is defamatory; the fact that it was used in such a large front is a form of harassment and slander (being libelous).

If a person is unable to decipher humorous exaggeration and sarcasm, they should probably avoid the internet.

I can't believe I actually have to make the most obvious statement in history but... not every thing is meant to be taken 100% literally.

originally posted by: Answer

I can't believe I actually have to make the most obvious statement in history...

C'mon -- the "Most obvious statement in history"

I don't think so.

originally posted by: Barcs

If something is true, it is not insulting or defamatory. Borntowatch has been presented with numerous evidence and reasoned explanations since the beginning of this thread, and he pretends they don't exist and still claims it hasn't been presented. That would be a lie. If the shoe fits.....

You know barcs your not telling the truth
You have offered nothing but hearsay and assumption, nothing but buckets of water

Not a drop of evidence, walls of evidenceless text and links with so much jargon and dribble, its clear its presented to confuse the truth with a lie.

Ecoli turning into ecoli and weeds turning into weeds, thats not evidence, thats faith in your religion of science. Sorry to let the air out of your sails but you have given me nothing valid ever.
I dont think you are lying, I just think your faith has clouded reality.

Do you hear Christians argue against gravity, against round earth, heliocentrism...No
because unlike evolution they are proven to a degree unlike evolution and evolution is a faith.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

He also displays intellectual dishonesty by continuing to return to his strawman OP about the term "Evolution". It has been explained that (for example) the "Evolution of the Universe" has nothing at all to the Darwinism theories on how species change over time. It has been explained to him that the use of the general term "evolution" is all they have in common, but that hasn't kept him from repeating that strawman argument he first proposed in his OP.

I have linked plenty of evidence stating scientifically that evolution does cover the origins of the universe, you are just being selective because you cant answer the original question.

Go read the first few of pages, they prove you wrong.

You call it a strawman but the issue was never biological evolution, it was all the other types of evolution


The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

The theory of planetary evolution
www.umich.edu...

The theory of Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

I will stop there

So as you can see, these theorys are labelled as evolution, so when I say i dont believe in evolution I am not just talking about biological evolution.
Understand


Go figure

originally posted by: borntowatch

Do you hear Christians argue against gravity,

Absolutely. It's somewhat central to the entire cultish philosophy, walking on water, floating up to heaven...

against round earth, heliocentrism...No
because unlike evolution they are proven to a degree unlike evolution and evolution is a faith.

Not sure about flat earth, but the resistance to heliocentricity is well known. Galileo? Notice he was forgiven in 2008. At that rate we can expect acceptance of biological evolution some time around 2500?

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: borntowatch

Do you hear Christians argue against gravity,

Absolutely. It's somewhat central to the entire cultish philosophy, walking on water, floating up to heaven...

against round earth, heliocentrism...No
because unlike evolution they are proven to a degree unlike evolution and evolution is a faith.

Not sure about flat earth, but the resistance to heliocentricity is well known. Galileo? Notice he was forgiven in 2008. At that rate we can expect acceptance of biological evolution some time around 2500?

Forgiven by who, thats quite a simplistic argument.
and no we dont argue against gravity though we accept miracles, Christs ascension was a miracle.

talk about fundamentalism and selective arguments

originally posted by: borntowatch
Forgiven by who, thats quite a simplistic argument.

The same group responsible for spreading this brainwashing cult to the west and from which most modern offshoot versions would be a splinter sect. Though as backward as they have been, they do accept evolution...have contributed to cosmological theories...

It's not meant to be an argument, it's a fact. Though got the year wrong, it was mentioned again in 2008, but apparently was forgiven in 1992. So it only took 359 years.

www.nytimes.com...

and no we dont argue against gravity though we accept miracles, Christs ascension was a miracle.

Same thing.

You support your own version of gravity that allows for people to walk on water and float off into the atmosphere and which is at odds with reality (delusion).

talk about fundamentalism and selective arguments

Aka...inconvenient facts?

originally posted by: borntowatch

You call it a strawman but the issue was never biological evolution, it was all the other types of evolution

Yeah, sure...

We don't need answers for all of the others (even though we do have many of them), to know that life on this planet evolved.

Though in some ways I agree with you. One day we will probably understand enough to incorporate them all into an overall theory of the evolution of the universe, that includes everything you mention (and more). At the moment, our knowledge isn't at that overall level (certainly enough for the "biological evolution" part to be considered a common fact though).

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

We don't need answers for all of the others (even though we do have many of them), to know that life on this planet evolved.

Sounds very much like a faith statement "we dont have all the answers, we just believe it anyway, we are not religious promise" is how it sounds to me. At least you are honest to admit you lack some answers, now be honest and admit the answers you do have are just assumptions and it will all be over.

or


Please sway me into your beliefs with more than a few assumptions
The floor is all yours, wipe it with me
Goat weeds and Bacteria, going to turn them into wine or just more weeds and bacteria.

Prove to me evolution can change a species into another species, just dont use a bucket of water and drips as an analogy, talk about miracles. Evolution has her own miracles.

originally posted by: borntowatch
You call it a strawman but the issue was never biological evolution, it was all the other types of evolution

snip
...So as you can see, these theorys are labelled as evolution, so when I say i dont believe in evolution I am not just talking about biological evolution.

That's the whole point about why I called your OP argument a "strawman".

Here's what you said in the OP:

Cosmic evolution is the ground the house is built on, stellar evolution the foundation of the house, organic, the walls and finally the roof is your pet subject macro evolution.

My point is that you are linking these separate theories together, but they have nothing to do with each other, except they all use the general term "evolution", which simply means "change or development". Theories on cosmic or stellar evolution (whatever those specifically mean) has no connection to the standard theory of the evolution of species. They just happen share the common everyday word "evolution".

I don't care if those other theories that just happen to use the term "evolution" are valid or not. Those have nothing whatsoever to do with the Darwinism's idea of the evolution of species due to mutation and natural selection. Connecting these theories in your OP argument does nothing at all to call into question the validity of the standard theories on the evolution of species.

Our ideas on the origin of the cosmos could be wrong, but the theories on the evolution of species could still be valid. That's why the argument in the OP is a strawman.

originally posted by: borntowatch
You know barcs your not telling the truth
You have offered nothing but hearsay and assumption, nothing but buckets of water

Not a drop of evidence, walls of evidenceless text and links with so much jargon and dribble, its clear its presented to confuse the truth with a lie.

Ecoli turning into ecoli and weeds turning into weeds, thats not evidence, thats faith in your religion of science. Sorry to let the air out of your sails but you have given me nothing valid ever.
I dont think you are lying, I just think your faith has clouded reality.

Do you hear Christians argue against gravity, against round earth, heliocentrism...No
because unlike evolution they are proven to a degree unlike evolution and evolution is a faith.

I told myself I wasn't going to respond to you anymore, but you keep egging me on with the drops of water filling a bucket comment. I used that as analogy to demonstrate the concept of accumulation, not to prove evolution. Genetic mutations and traits accumulate over time. It's hilarious how you keep dwelling on the rain drop analogy, but you won't say a word about the genetic studies that have been posted or anything related to the science that supports evolution and the accumulation of mutations and traits over time. Basically, you are quote mining me. If you go back and read my earlier posts to you they contain way more information than that, and you just responded with denial. Nice try, though.

You admitted yourself multiple times that you refuse to read anybody's links. You flat out said that, but you are demanding for evidence. So despite you not reading links, you also say that you don't read "walls of text" no matter what information they contain, and you say that they don't prove anything. So, honestly, tell me what you want as proof. What would you actually accept? Scientific research papers are no good. Members posting detailed information about evolution are no good. What would you actually consider evidence of evolution? If you aren't willing to even read about the evidence, how can you possibly know whether it is valid or not? I honestly do not think you'd ever accept any evidence no matter how compelling. The doctor from Dr who could show up at your house and take you back in time to observe all of the numerous types of hominid species that lived here before humans, and you'd probably still deny it.

I have linked plenty of evidence stating scientifically that evolution does cover the origins of the universe, you are just being selective because you cant answer the original question.

Please refer me to that post. You have done no such thing. You have committed the fallacy of equivocation by suggesting 2 different definitions of the word "evolution" mean the same thing or are the same process/mechanism when they are not. Your OP is a complete strawman.

The theory of cosmic evolution
www.extension.harvard.edu...

The theory of planetary evolution
www.umich.edu...

The theory of Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry, I'm not reading your links to walls of text that prove nothing. I demand evidence of your claim, but no links allowed, sorry!

originally posted by: Barcs


Sorry, I'm not reading your links to walls of text that prove nothing. I demand evidence of your claim, but no links allowed, sorry!

I never asked you to read the links and I made it a personal statement

Go catch some drops in a bucket of water and present that as evidence to me, I need a giggle.
Just joking, I get the analogy, just think its silly.