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.

 

Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

page: 34
20
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: craig732

Evidence and proof are part of a string of logic, different yet related.

Enough evidence is collected and it proves that "whateveritis"...is provable to be true.

Then the issue, I suppose it would be called "opinion bias" where the preconcieved notions of individuals or groups whether they are right or wrong over-rule any evidence or proof one would present, no matter how convincing and provable/repeatable.

I have given this thing I have so vaguely described here as "mass retardation". The old bull# advertisement " a million people can't be wrong !...." comes out of the mouths of retards frequently.

A million people can't be wrong?, yes they can, and they will argue with anyone who tries to tell them different go the point of going to all out war to prove they are right when they are wrong.

A good part of the population of the entire planet is infected with this sickness, malady, disease, whatever one would call it...




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Kat Williams said it best. if Evolution were real and we came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?
did they miss the Evolution train? does Evolution not love them like it did us? poor monkeys



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ShaeTheShaman

Monkeys are just a string of evolution that didn't go extinct.

Only stupid people make observations like the one you quoted, and he was probably kidding anyway, being a comedian and all.

Never assume anything anyone tells you is the truth until you think it through to it's logical conclusion after you somehow shed the reasoning filters you were conditioned to have by those who raised and nurtured you to where you are now.

Shedding the filters is the hardest part....

And I don't think linearly enough sometimes....



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShaeTheShaman
Kat Williams said it best. if Evolution were real and we came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?
did they miss the Evolution train? does Evolution not love them like it did us? poor monkeys

Exactly; and what is this "only some specie get to evolve" and who decides this? All specie should logically evolve (even if hiding out) or the less successful become extinct. Humans didn't kill off the monkeys in that process (and should have) if vying for the same resources; which they were.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



All specie should logically evolve (even if hiding out) or the less successful become extinct.
Define "less successful."



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShaeTheShaman
Kat Williams said it best. if Evolution were real and we came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?


If Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity and all the modern forms of Christianity evolved from it, why are there still Catholics?

Or to put it another way, if everyone in the developed world has access to the entirety of human knowledge via the internet, at their fingertips, why do we still have idiotic questions like the one above?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Because...God did it?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Human DNA is something like 97 to 99% identical to that of chimpanzees...why would that be? I think that if one drills down into the biological and anatomical characteristics of life on this Earth, the similarities across species becomes obvious, thus suggesting common ancestors. Though creationism may, at first glance, appear to conform with Occam's Razor... In that the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer, the creationism assumption ignores the preponderance of physical evidence which leans towards evolution as explanation for the diversity of species on this planet.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Exactly; and what is this "only some specie get to evolve" and who decides this? All specie should logically evolve (even if hiding out) or the less successful become extinct. Humans didn't kill off the monkeys in that process (and should have) if vying for the same resources; which they were.


You know I used to think people were joking when they would try and use this as an argument. But I can see that some people really are just this clueless.

It's clear by your support of that horrible argument "why are there still monkeys" that you don't have any idea how evolution even works. Like not even a first grade understanding of any of it. It's really sad.

But here's something to think about that might help. Today's domestic dogs are all from us breeding wolves, but there are still wolves. So go figure it out.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing



All specie should logically evolve (even if hiding out) or the less successful become extinct.
Define "less successful."


Good question Phage. The less successful would be the obvious lack of giant lizards (80 million year old dinosaur relics) squatting on city parking spaces/under bridges and snacking in our front yards upon mature expensive ornamental trees.
edit on 30-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Ok. You get a pass because...special.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: felixdacat
Though creationism may, at first glance, appear to conform with Occam's Razor...


It can't do that either because their whole argument rests upon there being a creator with more complexity than the universe that it allegedly created. They explain the complexity of the universe by inventing an even more complex creator which they can explain even less. That is not the simplest answer. It's not even an answer at all.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Exactly; and what is this "only some specie get to evolve" and who decides this? All specie should logically evolve (even if hiding out) or the less successful become extinct. Humans didn't kill off the monkeys in that process (and should have) if vying for the same resources; which they were.


You know I used to think people were joking when they would try and use this as an argument. But I can see that some people really are just this clueless.

It's clear by your support of that horrible argument "why are there still monkeys" that you don't have any idea how evolution even works. Like not even a first grade understanding of any of it. It's really sad.

But here's something to think about that might help. Today's domestic dogs are all from us breeding wolves, but there are still wolves. So go figure it out.

Why have wolves never been domesticated and still live in the wild as their own brand of "cannis operandus dispitus humanus interventionus"? Why haven't WOLVES EVOLVED at all (since inception/idea form; more rows of teeth; like a shark). Some specie of wolf hybrid may explain the Malamute, Siberian Husky , German Shepherd, Wolfhound but I draw the line at any involvement in the Super Miniature Teacup varieties: (those being) the Great Dane, Saint Bernard, Mastiff and Great Pyrenees.
edit on 30-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




Exactly; and what is this "only some specie get to evolve" and who decides this?

No. ALL species evolve and continue to do so, including humans and monkeys and apes. There is no 'who'; there is only 'what': natural selection.



All specie should logically evolve (even if hiding out) or the less successful become extinct.

All species do evolve, every generation one to the next. The less successful only become extinct if their degree of 'less successful' means that something else crowds them out (this is a very general statement and not to be taken as an 'this happens every time without fail) or they don't further evolve to become successful in another niche.

'Successful' is relative. It is said that 'nature abhors a vacuum' - this means that if there is an ecological niche that can be 'successfully' exploited, then some creature or plant or organism of some kind will eventually take advantage of it.

Sharks, for example, have evolved very slowly (that is there has been very little generation to generation change) because they haven't 'had' to - they have reached a very stable form because there current form is so successful. Even so, there are over 500 species of sharks, from the humble nurse, to the hammerhead, to the great white. They are different, don't compete for the same resources, and clearly haven't wiped each other out.

On the other hand, the flu virus evolves quite rapidly.


Humans didn't kill off the monkeys in that process (and should have)

Why would you even contemplate that idea? Of course it is happening all around you right now, but does that make it right? Perhaps that is what happened to the Neanderthal - they were much more competitive for the same resources as humans than monkeys (or other apes) ever were.

And humans are NOT monkeys - they are apes.. Why is that so hard to remember?



if vying for the same resources; which they were.

Which they were absolutely not.

Humans evolved to live on the savannas, not the rain forest or tropical forest, while monkeys evolved for rain forests - they even have tails to help them get around trees.

At the same time that human evolution encouraged migration away from the monkeys (and the apes) habitat into geographical area where monkeys (and apes) had no access. They ate different foods, had different predators - in short they had different conditions controlling their evolution.

Your question is like asking "why didn't the North American Indians wipe out the Chinese if vying for the same resources. They simply were not vying for the same resources.

As I said above, perhaps you are thinking of the Neanderthal?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa
Apparently some specie evolve faster than others regardless of someone's idea of natural selection. Translation: the less successful specie dies out because it is not profitable or relevant anymore to the system. Sharks; they have no excuse for not evolving (and you as their mouthpiece/should be able to speak for them after 350 million years are not convincing). What era of Chinese vs the Native Americans (Indians live in India) (Chinese live in China). Rice vs Buffalo/Bison meat as food stuffs to be fought over; don't see any correlation. Savanna living vs Jungle living. Both groups of humans were forced into cannibalism due to failure to provide for themselves; not fighting over grain. "Humans are not monkeys, they are Apes" as you imply; applies to your familial ancestors (you evolved).



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Well, you can choose to be wrong if you want. Once again you make the mistake of thinking dogs come from modern wolves. They both have a common ancestor which they came from.

But it's your choice if you want to believe they were created like magic.

I'm think I'm done wasting time with you. I fear you're going to make me less intelligent just by talking to you.

BTW, those breeds aren't teacup varieties. Those examples are the opposite of teacup dogs.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Maybe because there are fossils of dinosaurs in every corner of the globe.

So when Marco Polo describes dinosaurs,


Um... That animal doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a serpent with just two legs even before snakes evolved to lose legs. So SOMETHING about that description is off.

I mean that description doesn't even describe a dinosaur, regardless if they lived during the times of Marco Polo or not. Not to mention, Marco Polo lived in the 13th century. If dinoasaurs co-existed with man then, why is only Marco Polo writing about them, and no one else? Why hasn't anyone implemented them as beasts of burden or beasts of war? They'd be perfect for BOTH activities. Heck, I can extend the same question to your Herodotus account even though he lived during ancient Greece. So I'm coming back to it for you next source.


Herodotus describes dinosaurs, etc they are merely referring to fossils? This seems strange considering their accounts undeniably indicate these creatures are alive...


That animal doesn't exist either. There is no such thing as a flying serpent. So Herodotus was either lying or embellishing what he saw. No other options.


more dinosaurs in history


If dinosaurs lived during the times of man, why aren't they used widespread as weapons of war or beast of burden? It seems the Triceratops would be an EXCELLENT tank animal. I mean some of those animals had some VICIOUS accessories that would make them excellent to use in wars. And don't pretend like humans wouldn't attempt such a thing. They used to use elephants in wars.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Not all dinosaurs were reptiles. Raptors had wings and were basically giant flightless birds that would tear you apart.

It's amazing what you learn if you stay up-to-date with science. Though, none of this is exactly cutting edge either...
edit on 31-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
I dunno..."God did it" sounds pretty simple to me. Though I agree that any God capable of creating the universe and all that it contains would indeed be complex beyond imagination, I dare say that your average religious type doesn't consider that at all. Believing that everything that happens is a result of "god's will", direct or permissive is a pretty simplistic way of explaining reality. It seems to me that religion serves a purpose of pretty much simplifying everything for it's adherents.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: felixdacat

Occam's Razor isn't about simplicity. Occam's Razor says the solution with the least assumptions is the likely solution. God is a BIG assumption because there is no definitive proof of god's existence. Then when you say "god did it", that is ENTIRELY an assumption, because you are saying that an assumed being can do an assumed task. That is why "god" fails Occam's Razor.
edit on 31-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



The problem isn't with a lack of proof, there is plenty of proof.

The problem is that we are bombarded daily with lies from every direction and people are gullible by nature.

They believe what they are told.

This is why TV makes such an effective mind control weapon.

ALL of us have been programmed from birth to deny reality:


Modern Western culture is based on denying objective truth and erecting a false reality in its place. The New World Order is dedicated to replacing Truth with a solipsism created by the same people who create money from nothing and charge interest.

"We have already contrived to possess of the minds of the goy communities...[they are] looking through the spectacles we are setting astride their noses." (Protocols of Zion, 12)

Modern society is based on a solipsism created by Illuminati (Cabalist) Jewish bankers and their Masonic minions. The word "solipsism" means a self-created reality that has little or no connection with Truth. Instead of being dedicated to Truth, humanity has been hijacked by the bankers. The "New World Order" is a solipsism that stymies and enslaves mankind while increasing the bankers' power and wealth. We are being drawn into a solipsism that inverts good and evil; truth and lies. We are being inducted into a satanic cult.

Denying Reality

What if you woke up tomorrow and everything you had thought was true was a deception? A deception formed by people that stood to profit from your ignorance. Not just on one small area but every facet of your existence. Would you want to know? Or, would you be content with the life you had before you discovered the truth? Could you close your eyes and act as if nothing ever happened? What if you could see the ways that you have been deceived and the way that those that came before you were made to believe a lie? How valuable would the truth become? Would it make you change your habits? your routines? the way you talk or think or speak? Would it impact you or would you brush it off and carry on with business as usual?

What if after waking up you decided to respond to that truth? What if you started studying history and world events and, like a string of pearls, events were no longer random but contained a sequence? What if that sequence was repeating? What if while studying these events they began to seem familiar? What if everything you believed was a lie?

Language is a lie. Words are weapons and the tools of mass hypnosis. Peace and Freedom are always defined differently by the slaves and the slavemasters; freedom to a slavemaster is the freedom to keep slaves; "peace" to a slavemaster means that his slaves are not rebelling, and if he whips them and abuses them, he does so to ensure that there is freedom (his freedom to enslave others) and "peace." Words are weapons. Propaganda is War

“The matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on the television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. IT IS THE WORLD THAT HAS BEEN PULLED OVER YOUR EYES TO BLIND YOU FROM THE TRUTH. Morpheus – “The Matrix.”




top topics



 
20
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join