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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 62
27
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Prezbo369




So you have no argument for ID (creationism in a cheap lab coat) and instead posted a bunch of stuff that youve made up and merely hope is true?


I didn't make this up. This information has been esoteric for at least 5,000 years and similar accounts where recorded from Egyptian antiquity and along with numerous other sources was also related by a man known then as Thoth and Mentioned in early greek history as Hermes Trismegistus.

It is also fully explained in Pythagorean Hylozoics, The ancient Veda records, Chaldean Kabbalists and The Gnostics Mystery schools.

Do some homework and you will discover for yourself.

This knowledge is well known in certain circles at the very highest levels of society but that is a whole different story.

Examples where this knowledge went horribly wrong includes the Thule Society, The original source of The Ayrian race one of the root races of civilisation after a certain epoch.

Other sources
The theosophical society
Madam Petrovna Blavatsky, Alice Bailey,
Plato's world of ideas
The list goes on, do some research



Um, none of that at all has anything to do with evolution. We don't care about your personal belief system. This is about the evidence for evolution. Not your personal forum for projecting your belief system and way of life onto others. I respect your beliefs, and do agree with some of the concepts you speak about, but please stay on topic, as per the moderator request.

The scientific evidence for evolution is a farce because....

We still haven't gotten an answer and people have already addressed the video in the OP.
edit on 5-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC




this is somehow evidence of increasing complexity from fish to man


Only in the case of christians...there still remains the smell of fish about them. You can smell them coming a mile off, Jesus Fish and all that.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Hi Barcs, at least we have had a spirited debate


I think you may have jumped a few of my posts, I have laid out my beliefs as briefly but as succinctly as I am able to.

I am not a scientist, I have every respect for scientists, I have studied at University and I am fully aware of the work involved to achieve any accreditation. My subject was not science, but I received high distinctions in all my studies due entirely to hard work. My greatest hope is, that a scientific mind explores without prejudice, some of the information I have tried to explain. Even if it piqued the interest of just one person more knowledgable than myself and who tried to look at what I am saying in a holistic sense, then maybe it could help to turn the tide from a physicalist world view to a more spiritual worldview.

At that, it's time for me to bow out of this topic and to thank you all for being patient with me and also to those who where not so patient.




posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


The scientific evidence for evolution is a farce because....



This is what make this argument so ludicrous, this very statement is arrogance at its pinnacle.

This is why evolution is not science, why its a faith, bordering on a fundy religion.

"I am right and you are wrong"

The onus is not on me to prove you wrong, its on science to prove that the theory is sound, it hasnt.
If it had then this conversation would be over.

All any one can do is argue and point to dubious scientific faith.

The scientific evidence for evolution is a farce because it has yet to be proven, there are still to many unanswered questions



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch
so there is this bird called a penguin that guess what, can swim.

we have more dna in common with chimps than with trees.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: borntowatch
so there is this bird called a penguin that guess what, can swim.

we have more dna in common with chimps than with trees.


Watermelons have 92% water, clouds have 100% water, logically watermelons evolved from clouds

Can a Chimp organ be put in a human?

Like the heart valve. Doctors don't use a chimp's tissue to make a heart valve. They use either a pig or a cow for it's tissue to make the valve. Why? Because it's tissue is very close to a human and will not be rejected like the Chimpanzees will be. Maybe they should look into whether we came from a pig or cow? But then again, we don't even resemble either one of those animals. And that would make it even harder for science to explain evolution.

yecheadquarters.org...

Can watermelons float, your chimps and tree statement is a little silly
edit on b2014Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:44:31 -0600123120145pm312014-12-05T22:44:31-06:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch
your missing the point i said dna. our dna can tell us how much in common we have with other living things that have dna. so its no coincidence that we can use monkey hearts. you are proving my point. chimps and ourselves have common ancestry. and if we have a common ancestors then humans and chimps evolved from said creature.

so there. i really dont want to give anyone that didnt pay attention in school a biology class

btw pigs and humans are both mammals. biology and evolution are very interesting and beautiful sciences you should look into them more

edit on 5-12-2014 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2014 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
We can use monkey hearts for what exactly
i am a little confused by your comments


You should have read the link

yecheadquarters.org...



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I think we just choose not to use organs from other primates because of political/social reasons, not because they are no good.

Pigs are food, we slaughter them all the time and use them for all kinds of stuff and they are still very close to humans DNA. In other words, we just don't give a sh*t if we kill pigs and steal their organs for ourselves, but we give a little bit of a sh*t if someone does that to primates.

Go figure...

But I could be wrong about that.....Personally, I've never had Primate Bacon but if it's half as good as pig bacon, I say we fry them up some monkey and eggs right now!
edit on 5-12-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: borntowatch
so there is this bird called a penguin that guess what, can swim.

we have more dna in common with chimps than with trees.


Watermelons have 92% water, clouds have 100% water, logically watermelons evolved from clouds

Can a Chimp organ be put in a human?

Like the heart valve. Doctors don't use a chimp's tissue to make a heart valve. They use either a pig or a cow for it's tissue to make the valve. Why? Because it's tissue is very close to a human and will not be rejected like the Chimpanzees will be. Maybe they should look into whether we came from a pig or cow? But then again, we don't even resemble either one of those animals. And that would make it even harder for science to explain evolution.

yecheadquarters.org...

Can watermelons float, your chimps and tree statement is a little silly


Creationists tried it once.
Loma Linda


Pediatric heart surgeon Dr. Leonard Bailey said his Adventist faith complements the groundbreaking medicine he routinely practices. "I think the health message has been fundamental to the Adventist philosophy of life right from the very beginning," he said. "I think it's part of the mission of this organization to (be) ... on the edge of science."

Bailey performed the groundbreaking transplant that put the heart of a baboon into ailing Baby Fae. She died 20 days after the procedure, but it paved the way for more than 250 infant heart transplants using human hearts; 81 percent of newborn patients with new hearts make it to age 5, said Sharon Robie, administrative director of the medical center's heart transplant program. The institution's heart care program was ranked in the top 50 nationwide by U.S. News & World Report in 2004.

Although Adventists reject evolution in favor of creationism, "variation within species -- microevolution, if you would -- is probably all part of the original design," Bailey said of Baby Fae's baboon heart. Adventists' interest in health care stems from the belief that "the physical body is spiritually significant," said Gerald Winslow, vice president for spiritual life at Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center, the university medical center's parent corporation.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch
thats my mistake. animal tissue would be rejected as far as i know.
still i was talking about dna and how we can literally read our similarity to other life.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch


Can a Chimp organ be put in a human?

Absolutely and it has been done several times.


Like the heart valve. Doctors don't use a chimp's tissue to make a heart valve. They use either a pig or a cow for it's tissue to make the valve. Why? Because it's tissue is very close to a human and will not be rejected like the Chimpanzees will be.


actually, the reason Chimpanzees are not used as donors is because of ethical reasons or functionality reasons. Not because they are less compatible than pigs.


Maybe they should look into whether we came from a pig or cow?


maybe you should look into the subject period instead of looking ridiculous for posting assumptions as though they were statements of fact.


But then again, we don't even resemble either one of those animals. And that would make it even harder for science to explain evolution.


It's BECAUSE of the close genetic relationship that Chimpanzee and Bonobo were only briefly used in early organ donation trials. People, particularly in the U.S., were extraordinarily squeamish about using our closest genetic relatives in a might makes right organ/tissue donation scenario. It has nothing to do with rejections or incompatibility. One of the first heart transplants after the advent of immunosuppressant drugs was from a Chimpanzee donor to a human recipient. The patient survived 9 months with the Chimpanzee heart thumping in his chest. He died not from rejection or compatibility issues but because the Chimpanzee heart was too small for an adult male human. One thing that was not an issue was trying to fit it into some evolutionary Ponzi scheme as you seem to think it is. The genetics are solid and conclusive in that Humans and Chimpanzee/Bonobo are the closest genetically related species roaming the planet currently with a common ancestor existing sometime between 7 and 8 MYA.

In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for the molecular most recent common ancestor (MRCA) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the bonobos and the chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
CHCLA = chimpanzee–human last common ancestor



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
We can use monkey hearts for what exactly
i am a little confused by your comments

You should have read the link
yecheadquarters.org...


I hope you don't mean Chimpanzee or Bonobo when you're referring to monkey hearts. Both, like HSS, are apes not monkeys.


By the early 1960s, drugs to suppress the rejection of transplanted organs had improved, making transplant surgery a more viable option for patients with serious organ disease. However, availability of human organ donors was (and remains) scarce. With surgical techniques perfected, doctors perceived that all that was needed were more organs, leading some to consider using different species, including chimpanzees, as donors for humans.



Three American surgeons used organs from chimpanzees: Drs. Keith Reemstma (kidneys), James Hardy (heart), and Thomas Starzl (liver). (1)In each case, the surgeries were conducted largely in secret to sidestep the moral issues that abounded. Most of the chimpanzee transplants were eventually announced to the public and were received with much controversy.



Although many on the hospital’s surgical staff were disturbed by the idea of using chimpanzee organs, Reemstma prevailed and was subsequently presented with an opportunity when a 43-year-old man arrived at the emergency room in danger of imminent death from kidney failure. Adam was killed and his kidneys were transplanted. The ill man survived for only nine weeks.



Hardy, a cardiac surgeon at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, had performed experimental surgeries on heart and lung transplants between dogs before he purchased two chimpanzees as potential heart donors.When attempts to revive a terminal cardiac patient were unsuccessful, one of the chimpanzees was killed to provide a heart for the patient. But the chimpanzee’s heart proved too small to support the human circulation system.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch


Can a Chimp organ be put in a human?

Absolutely and it has been done several times.


Like the heart valve. Doctors don't use a chimp's tissue to make a heart valve. They use either a pig or a cow for it's tissue to make the valve. Why? Because it's tissue is very close to a human and will not be rejected like the Chimpanzees will be.


actually, the reason Chimpanzees are not used as donors is because of ethical reasons or functionality reasons. Not because they are less compatible than pigs.


Maybe they should look into whether we came from a pig or cow?


maybe you should look into the subject period instead of looking ridiculous for posting assumptions as though they were statements of fact.


But then again, we don't even resemble either one of those animals. And that would make it even harder for science to explain evolution.


It's BECAUSE of the close genetic relationship that Chimpanzee and Bonobo were only briefly used in early organ donation trials. People, particularly in the U.S., were extraordinarily squeamish about using our closest genetic relatives in a might makes right organ/tissue donation scenario. It has nothing to do with rejections or incompatibility. One of the first heart transplants after the advent of immunosuppressant drugs was from a Chimpanzee donor to a human recipient. The patient survived 9 months with the Chimpanzee heart thumping in his chest. He died not from rejection or compatibility issues but because the Chimpanzee heart was too small for an adult male human. One thing that was not an issue was trying to fit it into some evolutionary Ponzi scheme as you seem to think it is. The genetics are solid and conclusive in that Humans and Chimpanzee/Bonobo are the closest genetically related species roaming the planet currently with a common ancestor existing sometime between 7 and 8 MYA.

In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for the molecular most recent common ancestor (MRCA) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the bonobos and the chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
CHCLA = chimpanzee–human last common ancestor


My mistake, they can, just not successfully

You still have nothing valid.
Humans and Chimps are different and the DNA is NOT any more compatible.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

This is what make this argument so ludicrous, this very statement is arrogance at its pinnacle.

This is why evolution is not science, why its a faith, bordering on a fundy religion.


No, it's science. Wait.....ummm, ya. It's science that's for sure.

It's also pretty much almost nothing at all like Fundy Religion. There is some degree in belief involved but not at all like any religion or even any philosophy. Basically any "leaps of faith" in evolution that are made have actual data to support them. No credible scientist is going to just blindly take a chance on some idea without something to back it up or they wouldn't be a scientist for very long.


"I am right and you are wrong"

The onus is not on me to prove you wrong, its on science to prove that the theory is sound, it hasnt.
If it had then this conversation would be over.


It has been shown to be sound. In many many different ways. So many in fact that it's quite impressive that anyone would try and deny it.

It's not over because you just keep denying the evidence or choose not to look at it. It's been over for almost everyone else for a while now. We are just being politely patient in waiting for the late ones to join us.


All any one can do is argue and point to dubious scientific faith.

The scientific evidence for evolution is a farce because it has yet to be proven, there are still to many unanswered questions


Like I said, the evidence is there, you're just not understanding it or choosing not to look at it.

I was just reading some cool stuff last night about Whale evolution. Crazy cools stuff too. You should check it out even if you think it's all a bunch of lies from the Devil, because it's pretty cool stuff.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

we share more dna with chimps than we do with any other living thing. something like half a chromosome. the less dna we have in common with other life the less we are alike to them. this is not an accident. we can trace our shared ancestry with other life, we can literally read how we evolved. animals adapt to their environment and change. we can isolate a group of animals and they will change over time from animals that aren't isolated. thats how genes work. thats how dna changes. that is evolution



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

We are 98% similar DNA and we have 46 Chromosomes, chimps have 48. Your other points are accurate and valid.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
yea im not a genealogist sorry lol



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

The procedures that I referenced were just as successful as the human to human transplants that were being done during the same time period. In fact the first human to human heart transplant wasn't done until a few years later in 1967 in S. Africa and that patient only survived 18 days. You are so unwilling to accept the possibility that your wrong about everything that you can't even be bothered to engage in the most basic due diligence and instead base the entirety of your opinion off of a quick blurb on a message board because you're in a mad rush to proclaim yourself the victor much like a child at recess who is playing a sport for the first time without learning the rules first.

This is exactly why Anthropology is a science and not a religion. It's because we are willing to accept the possibility of being wrong and because of that we go the extra mile and then run a marathon after that just to make sure we've got our facts straight and that our thesis can stand up to scrutiny and review by people who are looking for any minuscule error in the hopes of discrediting the person submitting their data.

You on the other hand are so disgustingly arrogant about your world view because every facet of who you are and how you identify yourself in the world at large , completely and totally hinges on that worldview being correct. You aren't at all willing to entertain the tiniest possibly of being wrong and are completely unwilling to put your views under a critical eye. Your world view is THE ONLY possible worldview out there despite the fact that even under the safety of the umbrella known as Christianity, you are a minority amongst your brethren as there are 100's perhaps 1000's of varying interpretations of your own faith. And then there's the fact that there are billions of people on this planet who likewise believe that their god or gods are the one true faith with scores if them adhering to faiths so old that Christianity is still in diapers by comparison.

I feel bad for zealots like you. Fringe extremists to the core who don't even really represent to true ethos of their faith and instead March around with it emblazoned upon their chest like a superhero on '___' not realizing that the science that throws open the gates of reality for all to gaze in awe upon the splendor of the universe, is in no way a threat to your faith as the two are not mutually exclusive. But you simply can't see that because your so worried about being on top and being right or just shoving it all down the gullets of anyone within arms reach until there's nobody left to argue with which makes you feel safe in your self righteousness while remaining ignorant and oblivious to all the knowledge and beauty you're missing out on because you're scared You might be wrong. That's not living. That's merely existing and if that's what your god wants of its adherents you can have it all to yourself. I'll stick to expanding my mind and fully not with knowledge.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Well empiracle is probably not the best chosen word since it applies to science, and the Supernatural is not bound to the confines of our science. So probably the better word to use, is "witnessed." There are far to many people that have witnessed the events written in the bible for them to be easily dismissed. There is simply no empiracle evidence when it comes to evolution. No one has witnessed a monkey spawning a human, not to mention the fact that we haven't even gotten to the part where I tell you where humans actually came from. Do I have an alternate hypothesis, oh boy. Well I learned that I'm limited to a small amount of writing in this box, so I'm going to give you the crash course, then if there is anything about it you want to cover in detail, we can do that.

First of all let me answer some very puzzling questions that seem to be plaguing this forum, as is many. People want to know if the person we all have come to know and understand as God created us. The answer to that is NO, and I have proof, in abundances. So another question might be, did we evolve through evolution. NO, and again I have proof.

Of course scientists see changes in laboratory when they isolate a species. There are many complicated things to be aware of with this deception. There are going to be parts of your DNA that are going to naturally change, based on exposure and environment, and parts that aren't suppose to change. I'm going to reach far here not that I believe this, but just for demonstration purposes. A person that moves to a higher altitude might notice that his offspring have larger noses to accommodate the change. But that doesn't mean that if someone is always reaching down to the ground most of their life, that their offspring's arms will be much longer. What you eat will obviously change sections of your DNA. Again this doesn't mean if we run from tigers all our life that our offspring will be able to outrun them. Evolution is a faith. There is nothing solid to base it on. No one has seem the stages from micro speciation to macro speciation. Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a reason why? It's because it's all pretend, made up in your mind.

What you have done is confused the fact that A or several creators use similar rules when making life. This is why we all have similar DNA. Besides, how can humans have Supernatural abilities without the complex understanding and programming of that DNA, not to mention the specific organ to synthesize the effect, not to mention have it all connected to our brain so that we can control it? I'm sorry, but Evolution breeding Supernatural abilities is just impossible.

It would help if you read a tad about our history. Starting with what we are, and what we are made of...

Faith Produces Action (Faithfulness) (vv. 4-12)

The key question in our messes, brokenness, discouragement, and exile, and in our successes, blessings, celebrations, and joys needs to be, “What is God doing and how can I be a part of that?” That is faithfulness. And that comes out of the hearts and hands of people who realize that earth is not our home.[sic]

Definition of Faith (vv. 1-3)

Verse three points to the basis of this “blind faith” – and tempts me into a discursus on “intelligent design.” It reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” In other words, what you see ain’t all we got. There is more to life and this world than mortar and wood and nails, more than DNA and atoms and particles, there is supernatural intention, design, and purpose. And that supernatural intention, design, and purpose belong to God![sic]

Earth-is-not-our-home-hebrews-111-16.html for the supernatural intention translation. gspcsermons.blogspot.com...

So if you thought you were some workabee evolved to push buttons all day SURPRISE! I can tell you things that would make you cry. First know that I hold the bible dear for information, however I don't have nor do I believe in faith. This is because there are definitive findings in the bible that God lied all the time and was deceitful and it's crystal clear.

Humans are inbred. Eve was our ONLY mother, and still to this day is the only female to hold a direct line of descent to every human being today, even though they can see in our mtDNA that she had contemporaries that didn't.
While this is fact in our DNA it puzzles scientists because no one would ever imagine that Adam and Eve were actually abducted and brought to Earth, which is crystal clear in the bible.
God lied and told them he had created them, just shortly after erasing their memory, and while these points are well documented, I think most of the human race has over looked it, because it takes someone with a seriously long knowledge in the Supernatural background to see it.

I have studied the Supernatural for over 34 years. I don't care how many years someone has studied the bible, it's prefaced as dealing with Supernatural events, so we were warned, and no one listened. If someone has no knowledge of math, and studies a math test for ten years, they probably aren't going to understand it, this is the same thing.

So for those of you with prying eyes at this point, in case you are incredulous, or not clear on what I'm talking about, I'll spell it out for you *ALIENS!* *EXTRATERRESTRIALS!* *E.B.E.s!*

Find this hard to swallow? Here is the best part, YOU are an alien too. Earth is NOT OUR HOME. You read it yourself, and I have found ....about 87 concurring reasons in the bible that agree. Still find this hard to take in? Ok I'll help you out some more.

God was a different race. So God's abilities would not be exactly like ours. God could read minds. That's an alien ability most notably from the Grays. God was invisible, also another well known ability from the Grays. God could put people to sleep just as he did Adam in Genesis, also most notably known by the same species...... you guessed it, the Grays. It would appear that Adam and Eve were abducted by Gray aliens, and Earth was seeded this way. I have probably reasons, while some are highly documented, it's sickening.

We had Telepathy until God took it away from us in the tower of Babel. We had visions, as documented in the bible until God took that away in Isaiah 6:8> We also had the ability to be privy to Telepathic communications within any vision. We also had the ability to send and receive visions to other humanoids. There is a long scientific history of some people today being able to still do this. Some employed by the Government, This claim is redundantly proven both by people today, people in the bible, the order to have it removed, and tons of historical records. There are 118 visions in the bible. Sending and receiving could be a complementary set, but we have other powers too.

My favorite vision however is of Ezekiel, where he witnesses God descending to earth in a metallic space craft. Is anyone incredulous enough to argue with me that Aliens don't pilot space crafts?

There is tons more to this, but this is the crash course.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join