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.
Of course we have a common ancestor you goof ball, her name was EVE and his name was ADAM.
another clip from his link...
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
Maybe I'm persistant for a reason, and telling me I need to adressed in what link? There are many links and from I can tell I'm the one posting most of them. All links I have been directed to clearly indicate that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Sorry you still didn't address the evidence. Good luck with that. Regurgitating lie after lie doesn't change anything! You still need to address the evidence contained in the link. Until you do, you have completely failed. Go ahead, show me which parts are hypothesis and which parts are scientific theory. I doubt you even understand 1% of what that link talks about.
I didn't think I would have to go to the extent of having to explain this, but it looks like I will have to no doubt.
The same link I've posted dozens of times. You won't go past the first paragraph because it mentions the word hypothesis. What about several sub sections of each form of evidence? You need to address this, and provide logical reasoning for your disagreement with the evidence. Address the evidence instead of playing word games. That's all I'm asking. If you can't you have NO argument and should be ignored. You are claiming that since some parts are hypothesis (what is being tested RIGHT NOW in labs), that the whole thing is wrong. You need to separate the theory from the hypotheses and explain what's wrong and what's right. It's on YOU. The proof has been posted, if you can't counter it, you lose the argument, no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel. That's how it works. Right now you are just a random guy on the internet voicing his opinion. Unfortunately to prove something you need more than that and made up fictitious concepts.
The theory of evolution: 98% fact, 2% hypothesis
Creationism: 0% fact, 100% hypothesis
Interventionism: 0% fact, 100% hypothesis
I'm honestly not seeing where I said that, in the link your providing, either the meaning was taken out of context or I'm looking right over it.
Well sure it does, hypothesis don't stand as a scientific theory. I'll give you a clue, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and a scientific theory is a scientific theory. I even provided an explanation for you of how one can become the other, but just because it's intermixed with some theory doesn't automatically make it all a theory.
I'm sorry but the theory of evolution has never been proven to me, at least not in the way that it's being presented from other among ATS.
Common DNA does not prove we share a common ancestor with apes, I'm sorry your wrong.
Well sure it does, its a weaker theory.
If you honestly believe that ANY changes are evolution, then you also believe that when somone smokes while pregnant, they are causing evolutionary changes
Thats my personal decision, I choose not to accept hypothesis as fact.
Well sure it does, its a weaker theory.
And I'm suppose to take this at face value from someone that believes that a hypothesis is the same as a scientific theory?
This just confirms what I have been saying all along that the bible clearly talks about these things as we are from another planet.
: the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2: adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3: something that is adapted; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form
I don't think its my inability as much as it seems to be you making things up.
Your inability to remember your own words ins't my problem. Claiming that the "meaning was taken out of context" is also false, given that I linked to your post so anyone could look at the context themselves. Try again.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible.
The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry.
The evidence, including but no limited to common DNA, has been provided to you in this thread and others
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
Not entirely, but they can be.
Are the changes heritable?
I'm glad to see you not accepting evolution as a fact.
I'm glad to see you finally admit that.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
Your welcome to go back and check all my comments in three other threads about intervention, the bible, and Pye, and Von Daniken, and Sitchen.
Please clearly define how.
Just because all accessable definitions of the term are taxed with the wrong idea doesn't prove its true.
You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.
nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".
I don't think its my inability as much as it seems to be you making things up.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.
I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible.
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.
I'm glad to see you not accepting evolution as a fact.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.
Your welcome to go back and check all my comments in three other threads about intervention, the bible, and Pye, and Von Daniken, and Sitchen.
Just because all accessable definitions of the term are taxed with the wrong idea doesn't prove its true.
The link you shared had nothing about the subject, try again.
I linked directly to the post of yours that I quote from. You're back to denying your own words again.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible
The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry
The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence
It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
I'm glad to see you not accepting evolution as a fact. I have never read anything credible that proves that evolution is the cause for changes. I'm repeadedly told that evolution will not cause anything as its just a process, but I know of no better way to explain the unproven part. Everything happens for a reason, Changes caused from evolution are no different, as was the example I explained with ADHD and genes. Of course people aren't running around with ADHD claiming that evolution caused this disorder when scientists allready know it can be genetic but can also be programmed through an introduction of lead into ones system. Prior to scientists finding this out, these genetic changes would have been viewed as through they were evolution, but they aren't. All changes that are viewd as evolution have a similuar background just like the ADHD, scientists just haven't identified them yet.
I do accept the phenomenon of evolution as fact. I also accept modern evolutionary synthesis as the overarching theory that explains that fact.
There is no way it has passed the litmus when the cause of these changes remains unidentified. Shame on you for lying. Once that does happen however, scientists will be faced with a new challenge as the cause of all changes will reveal that evolution was false.
It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to wil
It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
I may not have brought up the geocentric part, but the rest is there, you need to go back and look.
I checked. You have never once commented on how the Bible's assertion that we live in a geocentric system "clearly talks about these things as we are from another planet".
It appears that there are no unbiased definitions.
You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.
Also I wanted to correct you on this mistake.
If they dont eat this target food they get SOOOO hungry they eat something else... which just proves how hungry they were for the original food
Not sure if you talking about target food or the addressing of the term scientific theory.
Repeating your assertions does not make it any more valid. Show me how being aggressively wrong, is somehow different from being stupidly wrong? Your opinion has been shown to have little effect on reality.
Do not repeat previous points without any objective evidence.
Do some more reading, read for comprehension instead of ammunition, and your lack of social skills might not hurt you quite as bad in this sort of debate.
The link you shared had nothing about the subject, try again.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.
I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence
All changes that are viewd as evolution have a similuar background just like the ADHD, scientists just haven't identified them yet.
There is no way it has passed the litmus when the cause of these changes remains unidentified. Shame on you for lying. Once that does happen however, scientists will be faced with a new challenge as the cause of all changes will reveal that evolution was false.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence
I may not have brought up the geocentric part, but the rest is there, you need to go back and look.
It appears that there are no unbiased definitions.
I wasn't able to see where the link was related, if you want you can re ask the question and try again.
I was replying directly to one of your posts.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry
The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
So if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and ended up giving him ADHD, your saying thats evolution .
Because for something be defined as evolution, it just has to be a change in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. The cause of that change in frequency is irrelevant in terms of defining it as evolution.
You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
Because it can't be proven wrong, just like it can't be proven correct. Without the supernatural elements present to give it a fair test, no one is going to be able to prove anything. The supernatural can't be tested by the standards of science.
So if the scientific veracity of the Bible was shown to be wrong long before the theory of evolution, why would you assume that it's correct about our origins?
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
The theory and hypothesis of evolution has failed, as in the examples that I have presented regarding target food, where evolution failed to explain the channels of intelligence, to ADHD and changes in our genes. Which is NOT evolution and if you think it is, your delusional.
Then it would appear that the "biased" one, which is the definition that is accepted by the scientific community, particularly the parts of the scientific community that actually understand science, understand biology, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology, is the correct one. It just happens to be the definition that you dislike regardless of the fact that it's the consensus definition.
I wasn't able to see where the link was related, if you want you can re ask the question and try again.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry
So if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and ended up giving him ADHD, your saying thats evolution .
Because it can't be proven wrong, just like it can't be proven correct. Without the supernatural elements present to give it a fair test, no one is going to be able to prove anything. The supernatural can't be tested by the standards of science.
The theory and hypothesis of evolution has failed, as in the examples that I have presented regarding target food, where evolution failed to explain the channels of intelligence, to ADHD and changes in our genes. Which is NOT evolution and if you think it is, your delusional.
"When a man makes up his mind without evidence no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind." - Heinlein
That isn't what I said, I said I'm not able to locate any section that was part of your question. In other words it would appear that you are confused.
You aren't able to see how one of your own posts in this thread was related to this thread?
Well all might start out as a hypothesis, but it doesn't move on to being a theory untill its proven, and even theorys can be proven wrong. Just like in the example of Target food proving intelligent involvement. Any theory is only as good as its weakest link, and if you have hypothesis dominating your theory like that of evolution, you don't have much. Seriously your polishing a turd.
All scientific theories "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses
These are perfectly good examples of something that evolution is not. These theorys are reliable, repeatable, recreatable and predictable, evolution is not repeatable, we never know from one example to the next if the same changes are going to occur, and if they do, they are not guaranteed repeatable. What happens to one organisim may not happen to the next. Evolution has no scientific value.
atomic theory, gravitational theory, cell theory, etc.
I didn't say it was all hypothetical as a result, what I said was you can't will it into a theory if most of it hasn't been proven, and I don't think one link of material I was ever directed to, proved any of it to be a theory, it's all speculation from what I read.
The fact that you don't understand that yet means you're still confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory and how that's different from being "entirely hypothetical."
And you would be wrong again, I never claimed to have made my own decisions about believing evolution, I'm just going by what all I have read from all the links I have been sent to, its clear to me they weren't suppose to be a scientific theory, and most of the hypothesis aren't proven theory. I don't know what to tell, maybe find better links before sending people to them is probably a good start. Of course with multiple links from the past all presenting this as mostly hopethesis, it's going to be pretty hard to prove that wrong now.
You have been presented with evidence of hypotheses that have been tested and verified in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level. You can't refute it on a scientific level, so instead you retreat to a claim that it simply isn't enough evidence for you.
In some cases but not all. Others are found to be aflicted from being exposed to lead. So I guess that means evolution to you right?
Are the genetic changes heritable?
The only valid reason I can come up with on why that is, is because they were only worried about what it was from our perspective here on earth. I have actually always believed that both scenerios are wrong and there is a lot more independence then understood. Your also making the false assumption that we know absolutly everything there is to know about our planets, and the fact is we don't, and anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. And I am seriously interested in knowing exactly what part of the bible refers to this.
But not all of the claims made by the Bible are supernatural. The Bible claims we live in a geocentric system; we live in a heliocentric system. The Bible made a naturalistic claim, and it has been shown to be demonstrably wrong. This is far from the only case in which the Bible makes a naturalistic claim that is testable and has been shown to be demonstrably wrong. If you're looking to the Bible as an accurate historical record or for scientific veracity, you're looking in the wrong place
Just because people use it doesn't mean its correct. Target food is observable, repeatable, predictable...
If you can't accept the consensus definition of adaptation -- the one actually used by people who understand science in general, biology in particular, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology -- why should anyone accept your personal definition for target food, which consists of "whatever itsthetooth feels like calling target food on a given day"?
If you can't accept the consensus definition of adaptation -- the one actually used by people who understand science in general, biology in particular, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology -- why should anyone accept your personal definition for target food, which consists of "whatever itsthetooth feels like calling target food on a given day"?
Other then amusement, why are you bothering?