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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Isn't that your beliefs

No. Are you proposing to slander me?




posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

This is so boring
"Universal common descent is the hypothesis"

Done


Was that statement from one of the cited peer reviewed papers? If so , which one? Break down the science, stop pretending it's not there and using semantics arguments. Where are your citations?

Trolls gonna troll.


We evolved from dirt and water from the Big Bang


And he just repeats the lie AGAIN, despite being corrected dozens of times. Hilarious. Let me know when you have a real argument. There's no point arguing with a troll.
edit on 3 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

That was from your beloved evolution site that you asked me to debunk, only half a dozen posts ago

Off you go



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


What aliens?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


What aliens?

Yes, what aliens?

The plot went thataway.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
The real issue behind creationism and why it is only strong in the US: Harvard study fluoride
You're welcome.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
The real issue behind creationism and why it is only strong in the US: Harvard study fluoride
You're welcome.


Citing mercola.com is no better than citing Answer in Genesis as far as scientific accuracy goes. Anyway, it's debunked in the link below but that's as far as I'm going to say on the matter as your post is off topic.


1. The paper only reviewed research that studied children in China (and one in Iran), not in the USA. So, there may not be any relevance of the data to child development in the US. This, in itself, is not a reason to dismiss the study, but it is a reason to to wonder if it can be applied to the US.

2. Since 2002, China has not fluoridated its water. Oops.

3. Most of the studies in the meta-review included children in rural areas who are exposed to large natural amounts of fluoride, especially in the water, but also from the air (coal powered electrical plants). In the studies, the “control” groups were exposed to approximately 0.5-1.0 mg/L of fluoride. Those in the “high” group, and of course showed more neurotoxicity, were exposed to 2.0-10.0 mg/L. In the USA, the EPA considers the upper safe limit to be 4.0 mg/L, and prefers water to not exceed 2.0 mg/L. Most water systems in the USA remove naturally occurring fluoride to below 2.0 mg/L and fluoridation is always in the 0.5-1.0 mg/L range. Or, with respect to this study–the normal group.

4. This was not an experimental study, so nothing was controlled. Confounding factors such as other naturally occurring minerals, say arsenic, and other environmental factors were not considered. This was simply taking a group of individuals (children), arbitrarily choosing a factor (fluoride), and placing individuals on either side of some number without consideration of the dozens of other factors. This isn’t science!


www.skepticalraptor.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I like the open ended aspect of this post. I see two options

1) our ancestry is from the ocean and our mutated existence is a meaningless blurp in the apathetic milky way galaxy. If this is the case, I might as well march back into the ocean and save the world from one more cancerous consumer exacerbating the worsening condition of the planet. -Lemming Style-

2) our ancestry is with God. In which case I should still forfeit my cancerous consumer lifestyle and march into the woods and apologize for hitherto wasting the gift of life I was granted and seek homage within the kingdom of Light promised through the prophets.

Ever wonder why God doesn't just incarnate into an inter-actable human form to teach humans the absolute truth? Oh wait...



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
It doesn't really matter whether it was a god(s), monkeys or fish. It's about common ancestry. If monkeys have +90% DNA compatibility with other creatures including man, that means they have something in common - Wow! What a concept! Now that couldn't be common sense now could it??

So if it was your god(s) who initiated the process, that doesn't change the process. Common ancestry is how life on this planet evolved - whether you like it or not - whether you think you were a monkey or not - or whether you just accept the obvious which happens to be common ancestry.

The only credible opposing argument would have to demonstrate that common genetic ancestry is meaningless. That also is a no-brainer - but hell, some of you guys stay up nights thinking this stuff up.


edit on 8-3-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
If monkeys have +90% DNA compatibility with other creatures including man, that means they have something in common - Wow! What a concept! Now that couldn't be common sense now could it??



This proves common ancestry over time just as much as it proves a common intuitive genetic coding by the Creator. Of course the genetic code is going to show patterns and similarities; it proves neither argument though.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I could have as well cited the original Harvard site. With much more brainpower behind it than your one man "debunker". Who is not exactly professional in this area:

"I have over 25 years experience in marketing, business development, and product development in the medical products industry, working in a variety of marketing, sales, clinical research, and product development roles with large and small medical products companies."

And my comment was on topic, because it is true, creationism is only strong in the US. No other industrial nation is so stupid to believe in something other than evolution and I am just seeing it as a strong hint towards the abuse of fluoride, as it is something also unique to the US.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
If monkeys have +90% DNA compatibility with other creatures including man, that means they have something in common - Wow! What a concept! Now that couldn't be common sense now could it??



This proves common ancestry over time just as much as it proves a common intuitive genetic coding by the Creator. Of course the genetic code is going to show patterns and similarities; it proves neither argument though.


Then you've obviously never compared the genetic codes of primates and man. A "pattern" is a similar shape; a "similarity" is self explanatory. But an authentic copy of code - base pair by base pair - 3D conformation and crystalline lattice - this all points to common ancestry.




posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Evolution doesn't contemplate the beginning, it's what happened after life had already begun. I don't understand why some people think that evolution disproves, or tries to disprove, the existence of a higher being creating life.

I agree, I never understood why folks who believe that God created everything would have a problem with evolution. Naturally you would think it falls under the "everything" umbrella, right?

But I often see it said that evolution does not concern itself with the beginning of life, only once life began. Well at what point did life begin?

I think there are many evolutionary biologists and others of similar ilk, who do concern themselves with abiogenesis. I also think that it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that life evolved into existence. I mean logically, it had to have been a process.
edit on 8-3-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I asked you to debunk the evidence. Thus far you have completely ignored it and only attacked straw mans and one line on the first page via semantics. Do you even debate, bro? The evidence has been posted, now the onus is on you to show where it is wrong. If you are so sure in your view, then it should be easy for you. If you can't, then you have no business being in the conversation in the first place. Evolution is a big boy topic. You need to have a basic understanding of it before you can logically even attempt to debunk it.

Like I said, this is your big chance to substantiate your claims with something more than drivel. No creationist has ever done it, they just pretend the evidence isn't there, just as you have. Maybe you'll address one of them? One out of 29 pieces of hard evidence. I'm not asking the world here. Just show us you know what you are talking about and prove that you are not just a troll. Time to put up or shut up.

The way you are attacking evolution is akin to me saying the Christianity is wrong because you believe that a zombie traveled to Israel mated with a goat and gave birth to a half zombie half goat messiah that was strong in the voodoo arts. Doesn't that sound stupid? Is that what Christianity says? That is how YOU sound when you talk about evolution. Many people fear what they don't understand. Get educated then come back and actually discuss the topic.
edit on 3 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Then you've obviously never compared the genetic codes of primates and man. A "pattern" is a similar shape; a "similarity" is self explanatory. But an authentic copy of code - base pair by base pair - 3D conformation and crystalline lattice - this all points to common ancestry.



This also could be due to genetic code from a common source - a Creator. Patterns, similarities, or copy and pastes present in the coding still prove neither side of the argument. When I code, I copy and paste frequently for efficiency's sake; it's intuitive and reasonable.

In the creation model It's supposed that all animals are based off some aspect of the human - hence the congruent genetic codes.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

First question: what specific issues do you have with the debunking?

Second question: this study debunks your study. If you are led by evidence and not ideology, I assume you will recant your claim in light of newer, more compelling evidence?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

From the leading researcher of that study directly commenting on the Harvard study:


Dr. Broadbent suggests that studies finding an association between water fluoridation and reduced IQ tend to have used poor research methodology with a high risk of bias. Speaking to Medical News Today, he said of the Harvard study: "The authors stated that each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious. It is a meta-analysis based on poor quality research."


www.medicalnewstoday.com...
edit on 8-3-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
This also could be due to genetic code from a common source - a Creator.


To make a statement such as that, you would need evidence of this common source. Oh wait, there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE whatsoever.

Common ancestry is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

So for an educated logical person making the choice between common ancestor and common designer, it's a no brainer.

Common ancestry is not just assumed because of similar genetics. It is understood because there is so much evidence in biology, geology, paleontology and plenty of other fields of study in science. Genetics is the icing on the cake, which confirms the findings of all the previous other fields and helps us understand it on a much deeper level.
edit on 3 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
In the creation model It's supposed that all animals are based off some aspect of the human - hence the congruent genetic codes.

This, in spite of the fact that there are incredible amounts of definitive, concrete proof that many, many species evolved, lived, and died out long before anything even remotely resembling a human being existed. And Christians wonder why people find their beliefs foolish and ignorant...



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I counter your study with 14 Chinese studies. link
I could have lived with "it is not entirely certain there is an connection", but it certainly is not debunked.
Now it really goes off topic.
Fact remains this creationism thing is a very American problem. I just wonder why?
Evolution is not only proven, evidential, but also beautiful.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

You haven't rebutted anything. What specifically are you critiquing in the original rebuttal and other study I posted? What methodological issues do you have with the study?




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join