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.
As though there is allready proof that evolution has anything to do witih biodiversity.
Given the information that's been provided so far in this thread, I'm not sure any further dumbing down is going to help. Further, it's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is for people who reject evolution to provide evidence for their hypothesis explaining biodiversity. So far we've gotten "God did it" and "aliens did it". And the bulk of the "evidence" provided to support those hypotheses hasn't even been positive evidence for those hypotheses, it's been trying to show that evolution couldn't happen. It's a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
As though there is allready proof that evolution has anything to do witih biodiversity.
Given the information that's been provided so far in this thread, I'm not sure any further dumbing down is going to help. Further, it's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is for people who reject evolution to provide evidence for their hypothesis explaining biodiversity. So far we've gotten "God did it" and "aliens did it". And the bulk of the "evidence" provided to support those hypotheses hasn't even been positive evidence for those hypotheses, it's been trying to show that evolution couldn't happen. It's a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy.
There seems to be no proof of....
Humans evolving in the past.
Humans evolving in the present.
Any fossile or skelotole remains linking anything to evolution.
Any connection between viruses evolving and humans evolving.
Proof of specieation in humans.
Proof of microevolution or macroevolution in humans.
Proof of what we were before we were primates.
evidence of any of the other 5 million species evolving, or having evolved.
The mass amounts of species variations from all 5 million evolving and having evolved.
You have zip, nada, nuka.
Now on the flip side we have clear documentation that tells us we aren't from earth, and that we were placed here.
I said it would be the CLOSEST thing to proof.
I can understand what your looking at because of two different species mating. Of course your also making an assumption that thats how it went. I was just looking at the end product.
Originally posted by iterationzero
...already been addressed in this thread. ... already been adressed in this thread. ... already been addressed in this thread. ... already been addressed in this thread. ... no, I don't think I can re-explain it or dumb it down any further to be able to have it make sense to you. Sorry
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
When I say "addressed" I mean answered sufficiently for a reasonable person. You and itsthetooth have incredibly lopsided standards of what constitutes evidence when it comes to this subject. If it involves aliens, you're willing to accept the flimsiest subjective evidence because you've already decided that it must have been aliens; you're no different from creationists in this respect, as they've decided on the answer being God regardless of the evidence. However, when objective and reproducible evidence is provided for evolution, suddenly no amount of evidence is good enough to fill the gaps where you keep your aliens.
It's like a multi-course dinner of logical fallacy -- an appetizer of argument from personal incredulity, a main course of that specially seasoned version of the argument from ignorance called "aliens of the gaps" garnished with strawman arguments, finished with a dessert of false dichotomy.
Excellent, now that we both agree on how I had put it, and it just isn't possible. now you understand the point I was trying to make using it as an example. Evolution just isn't possible.
Which is still wrong. You can keep trying to qualify this any way you like, you're still wrong. It's not close to proof, it's not kinda sorta maybe something like proof -- it's the exact opposite of proof.
So now your going to try to accuse me of making my own meaning on something that doesn't exist?
Maybe you should read up on the history of the crocoduck so you actually understand the erroneous point the creator of it was trying to make instead of inventing your own meaning.
There has NEVER been proof of humans ever evolving, and you have never posted anything saying so.
Yes there is...posted proof multiple time here.
Was this the same proof I have repeatedly pointed out to obviously admit to be inconclusive, or a postulated theory?
Yes there is...and the proof has been posted multiple times.
There have never been any fossils that close the deal on evolution. If there were, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
And once again you ignore facts...because all fossils FIT PERFECTLY and supports the theory.
However there is nothing that has proven that nechanisim also works on humans. Or is there a postulated theory for that one as well.
Same mechanism...
It's only been witnessed in smaller pools of molecular life. This does not included humans.
You mean apart from the fossil record, migratory trends, and DNA fully backing up speciation
OH NOW I GET it. I'm just suppose to accept it without proof, like you do. Nope sorry thats not me.
Thanks for once again proving to everyone that you're the pinnacle of ignorance. I and others have posted multiple links that unquestionably prove the above statement to be complete and utter nonsense. Once again, you chose to ignore FACTS
Ok so what were we before we were primates?
But we DO know
I see, so what do they know is still evolving and how do they know this?
We have complete proof that this happened...and in fact...we also have proof that they're still evolving...and that includes humans.
No I was simply throwing out an eye opener because even after everything I have read that you have sent me in links, stateing that they are postulated theorys, evolution is not possible on any level. Even under observed specieation it never changed into another species. Basically you trying to convince me that it all happens to slow to watch, and at the same time that we have no bones of proof and at the same time we have no proof of transgression of other species and at the same time have no proof of appering to happen to any other species.
Do yourself a favor and at least read up on the theory...because the above statement clearly shows you not only don't have a clue, your simply ignore facts.
I don't stand soley on Pye's work, there is also Sitchens, Von danikens, and the bible. Are they are wrong too? Cause they are all telling me the same thing.
Pye's random clown claims aren't "clear documentation"...it's FICTION until he allows peer reviews and until he presents hard data. He's a great snake oil salesman though, and a lot of gullible people like you fall for that nonsense. So good for him, at least he's making money out of it...
But I'm not really surprised...after all, you're waiting for crocoduck until you believe in the theory you so clearly don't understand
Your kidding me. You believe in something that is based on hypothetical theorys and we are the lopsided ones. Aliens were not a choice because it was all that was left, it was a choice because its written to have happened this way. Seriously at least there is documentation on it which seems to be a large setback in the evolution department.
When I say "addressed" I mean answered sufficiently for a reasonable person. You and itsthetooth have incredibly lopsided standards of what constitutes evidence when it comes to this subject. If it involves aliens, you're willing to accept the flimsiest subjective evidence because you've already decided that it must have been aliens; you're no different from creationists in this respect, as they've decided on the answer being God regardless of the evidence. However, when objective and reproducible evidence is provided for evolution, suddenly no amount of evidence is good enough to fill the gaps where you keep your aliens.
The ony reason why you see it this way is because you are unable to seperate yourself from your current believe in order to open your eyes to what is going on. On the other hand I was able to do this. You see I didn't always believe in intervention, I learned it. Learning can be very difficult for someone that is pig headed. This is usually brought on by how the person was raised. Myself I was raised in a partail catholic and part agnostic family. You were probably brought up atheist. This is why you believe in what you do. It's the only logical answer for yourself.
It's like a multi-course dinner of logical fallacy -- an appetizer of argument from personal incredulity, a main course of that specially seasoned version of the argument from ignorance called "aliens of the gaps" garnished with strawman arguments, finished with a dessert of false dichotomy.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think you know objective evidence is not possible from biblical times, much less anytime before hand.
On the other hand, you have NO excuse for not having it yourself. All of your evidence should be here, and easily accessable, yet there is none.
The links you posted don't pertain to humans, so its not objective.
Objective evidence from biblical times, give me a break.
Nope, Itera and the other evolutionists actually believe that DNA has the power to change on its own through speciation, genetic drift, and mutations.
so it's safe to say you think aliens have never fiddled with our dna?