Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

You have something better to replace it with? Considering there's more than enough reason to investigate evolution as a serious answer to our questions, you gotta give us something better to pursue in its stead. We want answers. So give us answers.

That is not the purpose of this thread. You don't see scientists being charged to replace something they have just disproved. I give you intelligent design. You don't like it so what. Prove Intelligent Design is wrong about cellular function and DNA code.

Your tone seems to have shifted, I think we are done.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I am not the one postulating that idea which I believe is wrong. You know you can't prove a negative. They need to prove their theory, not me.

Their theory has been largely accepted as both the most possible and the most probable to date. They have done the work, they have done the presenting, they have pitched their product and sold it. They have been peer reviewed and peer approved. They have proven there is adequate reason to support their theory. They have fought their battle and won their spoils.

You're the one who is new on the block. If you are challenging their theory, you need to come up with a legitimate reason. So far, all you have done is prove that it has room to be improved. We already knew this - why do you think they're still being paid? They're still fine tuning their results. There's new information coming in every day, and new details emerging from old discoveries. You act like it's a closed case. It's not. Not even close. It is, however, the greatest and most complete and verifiable theory compiled to date. And that's why it's respected. Because no one has come up with anything better.

So if you have a challenge to make, go for gold or go home. Bring a better product or help them make theirs better. And I don't see you doing either of those things. You just want to clear a space to park your own theory: intelligent design. You want to give us a reason to switch tactics, a reason to hate evolution. It won't work, because as stupid as evolution sounds to you, the current arguments for intelligent design sound even worse to us. Us, the scientists researching evolution for our benefit, and the educational institutions funding their research.

Your game plan was very poorly thought out. You came in planning to take the castle just by talking trash to the guards. And now they're laughing at you because you came ill prepared. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Obviously, this is not the thread for it. I also have your other thread subscribed, so I'll save that discussion for the other.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Heralding a potential new era in biology, scientists for the first time have created a synthetic cell, completely controlled by man-made genetic instructions, researchers at the private J. Craig Venter Institute announced Thursday.

"We call it the first synthetic cell," said genomics pioneer Craig Venter, who oversaw the project. "These are very much real cells."

Thank you for proving intelligent design. I really appreciate it. The clue there was "MAN MADE". Now had they thrown ingredients in there haphazardly with billions of more ingredients and out popped this cell you would have something. I don't know much about this synthetic cell and it's proteins and replication capability, but it was intelligently designed, so thank you.

That would make Dr. Venter God or the Alien Creator? Thank you for disproving creationism and the bible. LOL! He would have to be pretty old I guess....

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

reply to post by 1nf1del

 

Oh ho, sn-AAAP!!! Hey Infidel, click on that link with Vasa Croe's name in it. That will take you to your "proof". Have fun being educated.

edit on 14-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

OOOOH SNAP! See my above post, looks like you might just get educated, but run around and spike the football if you wish, life has not been created in any lab anywhere!

Actually it was life that was created....not a new life form. It was re-creating an already existing life form from synthetic means. I will never understand why creationists, or those that oppose the evolutionary theory, will not accept when evidence is placed in front of them. You simply asked if life had been created in a lab.....it has.

The people you quoted are in the same field as Venter and have plenty of reason to try to discredit or otherwise smear the work he has done. Venter is an extremely accomplished bio-engineer and very much on the cutting edge of synthetic bio-engineering. He has been in the field longer than either quoted.

No it wasn't!

NEW DELHI: Are the bacterial cells created in J Craig Venter's laboratories in the US actually synthetic life? After the hype and hoopla over the announcement of the world's first "manmade living cells", scientists are getting down to answering that question. And this is what most of them have to say: Venter's team has achieved a stupendous technical feat, but the cells cannot be called synthetic.

Using an analogy from everyday life, what the team did is akin to completely reprogramming a computer, but not building one from scratch. Here's why.

articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Actually you link does not prove anything.

What is listed in the link are opinions of individual experts before the 1980s.

This is far different than a consensus of a large group of experts which have studied the subject in great detail and reviewed the evidence with scrutiny. This is why peer review is important, if it wasn't then anyone with any credibility could claim anything and it would have to be accepted without proper investigation.

Can you find any credible sources post year 2000 who hold the same opinion as those in the link you posted? And has their work been reviewed?

reply to post by Blarneystoner

Evolution is fact! Source

It is truly AMAZING how gullible people can be.

It has been said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it as fact.

What you call “facts” are in reality hoaxes, frauds and lies.

Since George Soros said it, it MUST be true...

"Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence."

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)
Wikipedia Disinformation & Propaganda

Sometimes I wonder if people actually BELIEVE that State Farm commercial:

"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

You have been duped if you actually BELIEVE what you read on Wikipedia is truth.

All you have done is confirmed the premise in the OP stating that the "theory" of evolution rests on a foundation of nothing but hoaxes and frauds.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Evolution is fact! Source

It is truly AMAZING how gullible people can be.

It has been said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it as fact.

What you call “facts” are in reality hoaxes, frauds and lies.

Since George Soros said it, it MUST be true...

"Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence."

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)
Wikipedia Disinformation & Propaganda

Sometimes I wonder if people actually BELIEVE that State Farm commercial:

"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

You have been duped if you actually BELIEVE what you read on Wikipedia is truth.

All you have done is confirmed the premise in the OP stating that the "theory" of evolution rests on a foundation of nothing but hoaxes and frauds.

Uhhh... No.

You have been duped into thinking that you are educated enough to speak intelligently on the subject of evolution. I would post links to peer reviewed scientific articles but I don't think you would understand the context.

If you had bothered to visit the link to the Wikipedia article you would have seen that the quote I provided actually originated from the National Academy of Science US and not some random editor on Wikipedia.

[snipped]

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

What about alligators and crocodiles being living proof of evolution?

Do you people just swallow what other peeps tell you because, you gave up a
crap full of money to be told ? Shouldn't caymen, crocs and gators have
turned into birds by now ? Or at least become flying dragons or something?
I don't see no feathers ! Nope still caymen, crocs and gators.

Face it, what you've been fed is crap and creation offends you and the whole
world for obvious reasons. So millions ( just like you ) try to hide the truth. It's
embarrassing to have to face the fact that, you and possibly your semi recent
ancestry, have been taught a nice little conveneint way out of, your perfectly
reasonable responsibility to your maker and giver of life.
Understanable from a secular point of view. Believe it your whole bleek life if
you choose. But remember, trying to pass it off as a truth ? To someone
like me ? [snipped]

reply to post by Murgatroid


Who is saying that life began on earth, you do know the universe is bigger than that. Science is now finding evidence that life could have very well started elsewhere in the universe and came here. Evidence shows that 500 million years ago, mars had a better chance of supporting life than earth did. We also know that there are organisms that can survive in the vacuum of space, extreme heat and cold, radiation and live without food or water for over a century. We also have rocks that fly into our planet from other celestial masses, who knows what they are carrying with them.

New reconstructions of ancient proteins have provided clues to the habitat and origins of life on Earth.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Extremophile that can survive through extended, exposed space travel
apod.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

Life will find a way to adapt, changes happen on a genetic level, its simple chemistry mixed with epigenetic changes and DNA methylation. We don't know where life came from, and we are still trying to figure it out. It looks like our answer isn't even on earth at this point, but only the logos 'knows'.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Evolution of species is fact, not speculation or guess work. It has been OBSERVED!!

No it isn't. If it were a fact we would not be having this discussion and point out things that do not go along with the evolution theory.

The only reason we are having this discussion is due your denial of the overwhelming evidence and complete lack of education regarding this topic.

There are no fossil records showing incremental change from one species to another. There are similar species, but the link is missing.

It took me all of 15 seconds to find pages that describe in detail, transitional fossil records that prove you do not have a clue what you are talking about. You should at least have enough repspect for yourself to look up the ridiculous claims you so eagerly type in your responses. I feel embarassed for you.

Berkley.edu

Live Science

Transitional fossil do exist, have been found, and are well documented.

Adaptation is not evolution. Darwin had a great idea about adaptation and how species survive and also pointing to why some go extinct.

Yes... adaptation is evolution. The very definition of "adaptations' when used in the context of evolution is any trait or characteristic that is subjected to natural selection.

He made his mistake when he tried to push common ancestry which has never been observed or proven.

Wrong again.... common ancestory is Darwin's most brilliant insight. Modern science is proving just how right he was... but I'm sure you'll ignore this evidence as well. I doubt you'll even click the link as it is contrary to your narrow minded, undereducated, simplistic view of the world.

Scientific American - The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

reply to post by randyvs


No way can you be serious about that. There are still crocs because they are well suited to their environment. If you want to ask that question though, ask why there are still billions of bacteria in your body, where are their feathers? Well, they don't need them when they live in the gastrointestinal gully works. Are you aware of symbiosis? Sometimes a mutual benift between species allows them to not have to evolve further, unless its to help the preservation of the species. If a croc where to ever grow feathers, I doubt that genetic change would last considering they are doing fine without them. With the evidence available, however, a croc wouldn't just grow feathers from one generation, if anything it would be the expression of a gene to change its scales by a ridiculously small minutiae that it would be unnoticed to you without proper investigation.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
You do realize Darwin had his degree in theology don't you? He was not a trained scientist. He observed adaptation and then went on to push common ancestry with his tree of life. If you put so much stock in science degrees then you should discount Darwin and evolution off the bat.

Are you just making stuff up as you go?

Darwin's tertiary education:
University of Edinburgh Medical School (medicine)
University of Cambridge (ordinary Bachelor of Arts)
professional institution: Geological Society of London

Damn dude... I really am amazed at your persistance in the face of so much fail.

reply to post by randyvs

Ah see there it is. Resort to the old insults when you've completely lost an arguement.

Nein. It's not so much losing an argument, as finding an argument the opposing party will listen to. You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make it think.

Let that hate flo AI, as perfect evidence of your spellbinding fear like some childish
"wretch ". Unbelievable. Do you sleep with the lights on ? Way to go !

Nope. Unlike some, I don't fear a boogie man.

ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please read:
We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Having read the above, there should be no doubt ATS does not condone rudeness, so please be aware that further post removals and posting bans are potential consequences of continued incivility.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

Are you just making stuff up as you go?

Nah bro, that would be the way the evolutionists roll with all the "Hoaxes and Desperate Lies" remember?

Stooping to that level is totally unnecessary when you have the truth on your side.

Very nice job destroying your own credibility BTW...

When analyzing the writings of Darwin, it is insightful to keep in mind that he has not been trained as a scientist, but as a clergyman. Darwin, as theology-student-turned-naturalist, writes to make disciples of his scientific “gospel”. Source

Darwin was a theology student. He was not a scientist. He was, however, able to talk his way into opportunities through which he hoped to present himself to others as a naturalist. Darwin allowed his new-formed faith in man, materialism, and process to justify irrationality, shoddy scholarship, and wild speculation.

Once in the field, his lack of training and his inability to draw reasonable conclusions from his observations became apparent. This is why many followers of his theory of evolution must ignore the actual research of Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle and elsewhere, since so much of his work in places like the Galapagos Islands has been discredited.

What I Teach My Children About Charles Darwin

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.

Darwin Only Had a Theology Degree

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

We've had...what? 50 years? 50 years to attempt to recreate the conditions by which life first formed. Because only in the last 50 or so years have we really had anything close to a clear understanding of what those conditions were. The first key to successfully completing that sort of process is having the maturity to recognize that the process being recreated first happened over a course of thousands and thousands of years. Do you really expect us to recreate it in less than 100? Haha. Clearly, you are the expert we have all been waiting for.

I really wonder what will happen the day when scientists actual succeed at creating life in the laboratory from amino acids. I wonder what will the creationists say then. There will probably be a great many that simply deny it some would do so if it was done right in front of them.

Makes me wonder if some of the anti science people are fighting so hard trying to keep those experiments from happening because they fear success.