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: 35
20
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

What about the countless depictions of Zeus? What about the countless depictions of Horus? I guess those must be true as well, eh? Sorry, ancient stories are not evidence, regardless of how many people repeat and copy them. Plus you haven't addressed any evolution evidence posted and this thread is about evidence FOR evolution. Ancient art depicting lizards has nothing to do with it. You need physical evidence, not art, not stories.
edit on 31-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




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

You really are a one trick pony, aren't you? Other people's opinions and quote mines are proof in your eyes, lol. Yet you blindly believe the other side without a hitch.

Honestly, how many times have you copied and pasted that same fallacious response in evolution threads? Find a new gimmick. Be honest and address the evidence itself instead of posting off topic rhetoric completely irrelevant to the thread. You talk about blindly believing things, but your anti science position is exactly that. Most of us have researched both sides. One has tangible findings that hold weight. The other does not, and oddly enough that's the one you believe.
edit on 31-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
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.”


So I guess you prefer to follow a junk bond salesman - look who's living in the Matrix!!!!




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I'd say you are making a good point, but I've seen your reasoning before. You pretend like everything we are told is a lie. That no ONE is telling the truth. Ever. That isn't true. It can't be true. Because if YOU are capable of not lying to someone, so are other people. That means, that there IS honesty out there.

No see, propaganda is more insidious than you are suggesting, but because it is the way it is, one can LEARN how to more effectively spot it and interpret it correctly.

Besides, your theory needs a liberal dose of Occam's Razor. Just because we've been lied to in the past by the media doesn't automatically mean that everything the media tells us are lies. That is an assumption.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: rnaa
Apparently some specie evolve faster than others regardless of someone's idea of natural selection.

Based on natural selection, that is exactly what SHOULD happen. Unless you believe that every part of earth has the same exact environment at all times.


Translation: the less successful specie dies out because it is not profitable or relevant anymore to the system.


It has nothing to do with relevance, either they survive or they don't.


Sharks; they have no excuse for not evolving


Yes they do. They dominate their environment, so the majority of genetic mutations are not beneficial and sharks that get them die. You think of the word "evolve" differently than what it actually means. Technically they have been evolving all of that time. They just haven't experienced significant changes aside from smaller size, which makes sense since life overall has gotten smaller in the past hundred million years and it is more efficient. Remember, the majority of genetic mutations from generation to generation are neutral, meaning they have no noticeable affect on the morphology of the creature.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

What about the countless depictions of Zeus?


This is the crux of the matter. Pun intended. If Zeus were depicted in both the new (America) and old (euro-asia-africa) then I would be looking into what the truth is of Zeus. But it is only described by certain people around the Mediterranean sea... So we would conclude that it is a myth, and only they would understand its meaning completely.

On the other hand, dragons are ubiquitous in cultures across the globe. Cultures separated by oceans are still describing the same large, terrifyingly aggressive serpent-like creatures. This is not a simple myth, but rather, it is something that all these cultures must have observed directly, unless all of these cultures have coincidentally fabricated the same myth of the same large serpent... which probability insists is nearly impossible. Therefore, we must assume that these cultures observe the large serpents that we now cal "dinosaurs", and if they observed these creatures that means they are nowhere near hundreds of millions of years old.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: felixdacat
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Human DNA is something like 97 to 99% identical to that of chimpanzees...



Similarly, An intelligent code of life would intuitively have similar coding for similar organisms. This is no way proves either side of the argument.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


Tyranosaurus Rex had only two legs... sooo...?


originally posted by: Barcs

the majority of genetic mutations are not beneficial and sharks that get them die.



When was the last seen beneficial genetic mutation seen in the human?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
originally posted by: Barcsoriginally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: rnaa

vhb: Apparently some specie evolve faster than others regardless of someone's idea of natural selection.


Barcs: Based on natural selection, that is exactly what SHOULD happen. Unless you believe that every part of earth has the same exact environment at all times.


vhb: Sharks; they have no excuse for not evolving


Barcs: Yes they do. They dominate their environment, so the majority of genetic mutations are not beneficial and sharks that get them die.

They do not dominate the environment they live within. Dolphins as a 'swimming specie' rule this domain (dislike the shark and attack/ram them). No habeas corpus writ or warrant; the 'free to swim at will laws' totally ignored and violated; (forgetting the boat floating human in this drama).

Barc: You think of the word "evolve" differently than what it actually means. Technically they have been evolving all of that time. They just haven't experienced significant changes aside from smaller size, which makes sense since life overall has gotten smaller in the past hundred million years and it is more efficient. Remember, the majority of genetic mutations from generation to generation are neutral, meaning they have no noticeable affect on the morphology of the creature.

Larger creatures historically eat themselves out of their own ecosystem by destroying their habitat. I am not sure 'evolve' applies. There are many types of lemurs (a successful foundation specie); I would imagine the unsuccessful ones died off as a natural progression of that specie; say there were 500 experimental subtypes to begin with and the most successful ones (200) thrived; why is this scenario not just as feasible?
edit on 31-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

You mean a Mastiff will not fit in the palm of my hand? What was I thinking? I most assuredly believe in magic just as I believe you exist.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I most assuredly believe in magic just as I believe you exist.


Huh???

You don't need magic to know I exist. Even though I am magically delicious.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I most assuredly believe in magic just as I believe you exist.


Huh???
You don't need magic to know I exist. Even though I am magically delicious.

Of course you are (thought you needed reminding).
edit on 31-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Even though I am magically delicious.


Ok,... this thread has gone places I care not to know about.

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



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You pretend like everything we are told is a lie. That no ONE is telling the truth. Ever. That isn't true. It can't be true.



He is not saying that at all, but you are on to something. In a world bombarded by lies, obviously the Overseer of this domain is going to send a particular messenger to reveal the truth for those who are seeking. And, furthermore, this truth is obviously going to be so unimaginably awesome that very few will believe.

Who has the fortitude to forfeit all of their material possessions to pursue spiritual upliftment? Very few will ride through the narrow gate...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Who has the fortitude to forfeit all of their material possessions to pursue spiritual upliftment?


Certainly nobody using a computer, to post on ATS.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: cooperton
Who has the fortitude to forfeit all of their material possessions to pursue spiritual upliftment?


Certainly nobody using a computer, to post on ATS.


Touche... Which persists the question... Who has the fortitude to forfeit all of their material possessions???



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Monks living in solitude? Idk.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton


When was the last seen beneficial genetic mutation seen in the human?


Sickle cell anemia against malaria for one
The ability to digest lactose is another



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Why exactly do you have to do that anyway???

Are you suggesting that God put people on the earth and gave them life just to make them sit naked and alone somewhere with nothing until they die???

What's the point???

I don't think anyone has really given much thought as to how valid the rules are in this made up little game religion has going for it. It's all based around making life as pointless as possible in order to allegedly get rewarded in death. What a crock of shat!!



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I know what he's getting at. It has less to do with people owning or using material things. It has more to do with "carnal desires of the flesh". In other words, letting the material world take priority over the spiritual. Or getting between you and God. My mom's husband is always on about this. In a lot of ways it makes sense, whether you are religious or not. Not material things getting between you and God but, letting a materialistic mindset take over your life. I've known people like that, and I know how disgusted I felt about them always having to own the best things etc.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I get ya. It's like the Buddhist idea of non-attachment. Because becoming attached to material things will eventually cause suffering if you aren't able to let it go. Being that all things, every possession you have, even everyone you've ever known and loved will be gone at some point, the less attachment you have the better.

It also removes the urge people get when they fear losing something so bad that they'll do anything to keep it a little longer. The bigger their attachment to something is the crazy the things they'll do just to hold on to it a bit longer even though in the end they'll eventually lose it anyway.




top topics



 
20
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join