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's no longer a personal opinion when to many others are sharring it.
Also add to your list that scientists making empty claims by stating a PERSONAL OPINION isn't the same as them presenting a well backed up scientific theory
You mean unlike the theory of evolution .
To give an example: Einstein could claim that god exists...but that would be a general personal (!!) statement of belief that isn't backed up by objective evidence. On the other hand, his theory of relativity is backed up by objective evidence, and therefore credible. BIG difference!
Of course you have to totally ignore the documented history along with it, I think your fighing an uphill battle, evolution doesn't have any help like this.
Of course a lot of creationists simply ignore this and continue to use argumentative fallacies like the argument from authority
Originally posted by itsthetooth
It's no longer a personal opinion when to many others are sharring it.
Of course you have to totally ignore the documented history along with it, I think your fighing an uphill battle, evolution doesn't have any help like this.
It's no longer a personal opinion when to many others are sharring it.
You mean unlike the theory of evolution
Of course you have to totally ignore the documented history along with it, I think your fighing an uphill battle, evolution doesn't have any help like this.
That would be because they aren't interested in being convinced, they are more interested in the facts and there is little to nothing when it comes to evolution.
Evolution has over a century's worth of published evidence to support it. The only uphill battle being fought on the side of evolution is the one wherein evolutionary biologists try to convince creationists that really and truly, evolution is a real phenomenon.
Not when those opinions are based on seperate facts that all say the same thing.
The plural of personal opinion is personal opinions, not evidence.
Actually there is a lot of it, historical documentation from the bible says that intervention was how we got here, Von daniken agrees, Pye agrees, and sitchen agrees, now are you going to tell me that you have single handedly proven all of them wrong and your right?
It doesn't matter how many people make a claim, all that matters is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that back up those claims. And in the case of intervention there is none. You should really read up on "scientific method" because you clearly don't understand what evidence or facts mean
That cracks me up everytime you say that because the only thing that is being applied in medical science is how viruses and bacteria adapts to medican. As I keep explaining, there is no proof that adaptation is even part of evolution, it just sounded good to include it so thats what someone did.
The theory of evolution is fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively applying the theory. So your comment is laughably uneducated
The bible is documented histoy, There are even historical land marks that have obvious alien background in various parts of the world, as explained in the movie charriots of the gods. You seriously need to get out more.
What documented history?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
That would be because they aren't interested in being convinced, they are more interested in the facts and there is little to nothing when it comes to evolution.
Besides why is just an argument against creationists, I'm not a creationist but I don't believe in it.
Not when those opinions are based on seperate facts that all say the same thing.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Actually there is a lot of it, historical documentation from the bible says that intervention was how we got here, Von daniken agrees, Pye agrees, and sitchen agrees, now are you going to tell me that you have single handedly proven all of them wrong and your right?
Are you suggesting I flood people with literature about intervention?
The thing about evolution is that there is an overwhelming amount of literature to support its existence;
The perponderance of doubt is placed on you, not on me.
it isn't just one guy harping on about a pet theory he thought up while making a sandwich one say. Maybe evolution is an incorrect model, but all signs point to that not being the case. Extraordinary claims such as the ones you are making (i.e., that evolution is not real) requires extraordinary evidence.
Of course you never looked at it like they are simply the hardest to fool.
It's an argument against anyone who still somehow thinks that scientists are peddling misinformation about something as fundamental as evolution. I named creationists as they tend to be the majority of dissenters.
So in other words, what you are saying is that you don't comprehend the definition of the catagory of the bible which explains why scientific boundries can't test the events in the bible.
The bible? Are you serious? It doesn't matter how many people think that the bible is accurate, scientific literature and the evidence therein trumps the fantasy tales of written by historians well after the fact every single time. Do you have a logical alternative explanation for tens of thousands of papers authored by tens of thousands of research groups across the globe that say evolution is real? Have you even read any of them, or are you just taking the word of the various crackpots you apparently ascribe your beliefs to?
su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous
Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by itsthetooth
I have better things to do than argue with brick walls, so I'll leave you to your willful ignorance and hope that the people you try and convince have the better sense to go and read things with a more skeptical mind than you seem to be able to do.
I think your the first person to understand the definition, kudos to you man.
I have better things to do than argue with brick walls, so I'll leave you to your willful ignorance and hope that the people you try and convince have the better sense to go and read things with a more skeptical mind than you seem to be able to do.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
As I keep explaining, there is no proof that adaptation is even part of evolution, it just sounded good to include it so thats what someone did.
In adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. An adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals.
Your definition proves there is no proof that adaptation is part of evolution, just that they claim it to be.
Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true. Evolution is a label, it's not a magical external process. It's what we use to describe the observed change in an organism over time caused by genetic mutations and natural selection. It's funny that after all this time you still don't even understand the very basics of evolution.
I'm well aware of this, what I keep saying is that there is no proof adaptation is part of evolution, they just claim it to be.
It says it right there in the first few sentences of the adaptation wiki. It is absolutely part of natural selection and evolution. I can't believe you are still spreading blatant lies after all this. Deny Ignorance!!!
Well I wasn't really looking to convert anyone. I have refrained from spewing out tons of evidence and proof on this thread because those in debate have allready known what I have presented, and it all stands firm still to this point. Not a single person has debunked the theory of intervention and not a single person has brought any evidence against target food.
Dude give it up.
You’re not converting anybody here. You could have 50 reasons why evolution is wrong, and someone will find 51 reasons why evolution is right. It’s like walking up to a brick wall and starting a conversation. Facts can always be made to fit any point of view. Example man has 90% same DNA as a chimp because of a common…
… designer...
(Or you can say)
… ancestor...
...Thus (insert your belief) is correct
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Tbrooks76
Well I wasn't really looking to convert anyone. I have refrained from spewing out tons of evidence and proof on this thread because those in debate have allready known what I have presented, and it all stands firm still to this point. Not a single person has debunked the theory of intervention and not a single person has brought any evidence against target food.
Dude give it up.
You’re not converting anybody here. You could have 50 reasons why evolution is wrong, and someone will find 51 reasons why evolution is right. It’s like walking up to a brick wall and starting a conversation. Facts can always be made to fit any point of view. Example man has 90% same DNA as a chimp because of a common…
… designer...
(Or you can say)
… ancestor...
...Thus (insert your belief) is correct
There are however claims, many claims based on nothing, and I see them for what they are.
As an example you brought up the creator versus common ancestor, and one thing that seems to always get pushed off to the side is how we have historical documentation that tells us exactly how we got here, and that earth is not our home.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm well aware of this, what I keep saying is that there is no proof adaptation is part of evolution, they just claim it to be.
Why do you lie like that? Just because in your little world you think that man shares a common ancestor with apes doesn't make it a scientific fact DELUSIONAL to the max.
1) We KNOW we have a common ancestor with chimps because it's a proven scientific theory. What we don't know is how life first started and what the first life form(s) was (or were).
Once again, only in your little fantasy corner of the world. We know its true based on historical documentation, something that evolution has nothing of.
2) We DON'T KNOW whether god(s) exist because there is no evidence.
And what supernatural scientist put this to the test?
The bible isn't objective evidence just like the Koran isn't objective evidence. Why? Because first of all they are demonstrably wrong in hundreds of cases, and secondly, they only prove what the authors back then believed or wanted to write.
How do you expect to convince me that humans today are all knowing when I can't even get you to understand the definition of the word supernatural .
If I draw a smiley face on a piece of metal and drop it with those indians down in Brazil who still live like cave men because they had no contact with modern human...guess what, there's a chance they would start worshipping that thing. Not because that smily face is somehow holy, but because they were UNEDUCATED ENOUGH to not think rationally about what it could be. They don't have the knowledge to understand that it's just a piece of metal, and they don't have the capabilities to ever find out. So guess what, they made something up...and if we don't stop them they would probably go on for a good while.
You would be wrong again, evolution is NOT testable, its NOT repeatable, its NOT recreatable, its NOT predictable. There is nothing scientific about it. It's not identifiable.
I'd like to believe we aren't cave men. We should test stuff, look for real objective evidence (aka not "smiley face looks round like sun, sun wants to be worshipped" subjective opinions). And the way to do it is through scientific method, where stuff is backed up by evidence, testable, and re-creatable. That's exactly what evolution is, because we see the same pattern in every single species we tested. And MILLIONS were tested...and the theory holds up.
Cliff notes: Creator nay (at least there's no evidence), evolution yay
If that were true, the beginning of the bible woudln't be prefaced under the supernatural section.
There is no proof for magic
The only reason you insist it exists is because it's the only way you can rationalise your crazy belief in your mind...
su·per·nat·u·raladjective /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
1.(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
- a supernatural being
2.Unnaturally or extraordinarily great
- a woman of supernatural beauty
noun /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
supernaturals, plural
1.Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts