Whether you see one is not really relevant to whether I do.
I started this thread to provide evidence, primarily. The secondary reasons parallel the reasons why I posted a "real 9-11" thread. Better to have a thread with an OP that presents a rational argument.
Let's get something straight, I watch all these vidoes...ok? In that one right at the last we see something stupid about Allah....right? So cool that crap.
The thing is we see an awful lot of others who totally disagree with you, Why is that? How come I could post something similiar to the above every day for a year....well? Why do so many think the theory of evolution is a crock of bull ?
So nobody knows anything about this but you, right? How come I don't believe that?
there is no way you would watch that video and still post it here, as if it actually made any points.
its the equivalent of me posting a video that kept saying "evolution is real. people deny it but its real" and keeps rambling with stuff like that despite making no argument or citing any reasoning
a vast majority of scientists think that way
Avante do you know what the words "vast majority" mean?
Of course.
Such trolling serves me though, since I have stated that a lot of criticisms are invalid, and showing that is one of my purposes.
If he continues, then I get to show that. If he is trolling, then his trolling serves my purposes. I win.
If he is somehow genuine in his ignorance, then I get to flesh out why and I get to outline real evidence. I still win.
A bit late, so the deets will have to wait. Sleep awaits.
There is no end to this...
Another view.
You can know as much as I do, if you bother reading.
Not hard by any stretch.
Have you read the link to the explanation in the OP?
I was reading about the theory of evolution 30 years ago. And still don't buy it at all.
I've also been reading stuff like this just as long...
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Avante do you know what "vast majority" means?
Yep, those that believe in some God being responsible for all this.
So this is simply wrong?
The "Tree of Life" is falling
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:26 "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."
"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombs has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.13 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."
Why is it we are totally surrounded by that sort of thing today? So many not believing in Darwin's theory. How come everyone isn't accepting it as the way it really was? I don't think you really understasnd just how many out there aren't buying it at all and totally disagree with with you.
Last edited by Avante; 11-22-2014 at 01:07 AM.
That's fine, like I said before whatever makes you happy. I just said I didn't believe that learning good science had anything to do with why you started the thread and you've proven that to be true.
Avante doesn't understand the concept of a vast majority
Endless....
A vast majority had the Steelers beating the Jets, that "vast majority" was wrong.
The "vast majority" had Mike Tyson beating Buster Douglas, guess what?
The "vast majority" believes in God, yet you don't.
Last edited by Avante; 11-22-2014 at 01:24 AM.
Remember Science never lies.
Just tonight I've read numerous articles laughing in the face of the theory of evolution, saw videos talking about how wrong it is. So I just ignore all that because a couple internet kooks thin.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
I think I'll go with those who don't think sailors were raptists.
Is it at all possible that those of you who think evolution is valid were fed a load of crap? If you don't read or watch anything I've posted please watch this video. So they are wrong and whoever taught you years ago know better....right?
I have a great book on the Olympic games, in that book they talk about how Eddie Tolan (first black to win the Olympic 100m) won the 100m, the 200m and anchored the 4x1 relay to victory. Now 99.9% of anyone reading this book wouldn't think twice about that. But......in 1932 the USA brought a team to those Olympics only there to run the 4x1.....none of our 100m guys were on that team, including Eddie Tolan.
Don't believe everything you are told.
Last edited by Avante; 11-22-2014 at 01:47 AM.
It's 1936 and Jesse Owens has just won the Olympic 100m in 10.3. He is the fastest man in the world (no not really that was the injured Eulace Pea ). Now if someone would have asked the scientific world what the limits of human beings were in the 100m do you really think they come up with 9.58? Of course not, they would have worked around 10.3 and probably came up with 9.9ish. No way they see a guy 6-5 with a 400/200m background running a 100m, that was unheard of in 1936.
Give it up people, we did not evolve from fish....ok, that's ing stupid and only a moron would buy that bull .
How come fish aren't leaving the ocean today?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-f...o-be-wrong.php
Last edited by Avante; 11-22-2014 at 02:18 AM.
do you have a link that proves that the scientific community as a whole had set these limits on humans?
Give it up people, we did not evolve from fish....ok, that's ing stupid and only a moron would buy that bull .
How come fish aren't leaving the ocean today?
who do you think corrected those theories? oh wait, scientists
robdiaz, avante - idiots who deny facts
snakeboy - some personal bias blinding him, unfortunately
mouse - #justmousethings
do you have a link that proves that the scientific community as a whole had set these limits on humans?
who do you think corrected those theories? oh wait, scientists
I have a magazine (Track & Field News) where those who publish it are far far more sprint knowledgeable than any scientist that predicted a race ran by the greatest sprinters of all time with Owens being one of them would be won by Bullet Bob Hayes in 9.85 secoonds. And that was about 20 years ago.
What facts? There are no facts ya ing moron.
The "facts" concerning the" theory" of evolution.....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so basically no. you can't prove this claim that there was a scientific consensus of how fast humans could possibly run
Scientific theory isn't defined the same way as a general theory.
You're way out of your league here, squirt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
