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.

 

If We Evolved On Earth Then Why Does Our Sun Hurt Our Eyes

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
If Sol is the sun that humans evolved beneath...then why aren't our bodies suited for it? Why do we squint from the light from our own sun. And why does mere exposure to our sun burn our skin and cause deadly mutations in the form of cancer. How does that even make sense...to have evolved so that our environment is toxic to us?


Could it be; we are still evolving. Creationists always base thier arguments on the arrogant basis that we have, for some reason ceased to evolve any more and this is the pinnacle of human evolution.

Maybe in a few million years our eyes will Cope better with the sun who knows.




posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants

This is so absurdly, mind-bogglingly uninformed and ridiculous.
There.... there are things on planets that can harm creatures that evolve there. Always. Your premise is founded on the absurdly dumb idea that if a creature evolves on a given planet, then nothing on that planet should be harmful to them in any way. Which is just impressively uninformed and.... dumb. There are poisonous plants. There are deadly animals and predators. There are chemicals and mineral substances. Does the fact that eating certain plants would kill any animal, mean that no animals evolved here? No, it does not. It's just how nature works.
Feel free to explain how all of the benefits humans receive from sunlight fit into your laughable premise.
Ive never seen such an inaccurate/ironic user name...



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnalyticalDreamer

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
If Sol is the sun that humans evolved beneath...then why aren't our bodies suited for it? Why do we squint from the light from our own sun. And why does mere exposure to our sun burn our skin and cause deadly mutations in the form of cancer. How does that even make sense...to have evolved so that our environment is toxic to us?


Could it be; we are still evolving. Creationists always base thier arguments on the arrogant basis that we have, for some reason ceased to evolve any more and this is the pinnacle of human evolution.

Maybe in a few million years our eyes will Cope better with the sun who knows.


In a sense they may be right as we have removed ourselves from the very natural environment that forces our evolution
and we are intent on destroying that environment for one we have created ourselves which will only force us to rely on technology rather than evolution to solve all the problems which we have unfortunately created for ourselves as a result



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I can’t believe this topic has reached 8 pages...



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

Evolution is in the title... so

It will drag on...



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

They drowned.
Do you think the sea wanted them drowned?
If so why doesn't it drown everyone who goes in it or take down every ship that sails upon it?

The sea is water. It does not kill or care.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 05:56 AM
link   
We're so offended.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I can’t believe this topic has reached 8 pages...


Believe , the flat earth theory page hit 130 pages I think


I think ATS should add a part to the motto " acknowledge the ignorance "

or maybe "illuminate the ignorance"
edit on 20-9-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

Thats nothing. Have a look at the Nuclear Hoax or the Rockets Dont Work in Space threads!



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

Thats nothing. Have a look at the Nuclear Hoax or the Rockets Dont Work in Space threads!



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AnalyticalDreamer

When you consider how every other species has adapted to the outdoor environment to survive with no clothing or props doesn't it make you wonder why humans have not? In many climates we could not live without clothing. Many get sunburn easily and some have difficulty adapting to sunlight. We would never be able to kill and eat many types of mammals just using our teeth. Clearly we do not have the adaptions that other species do. Name one other species that requires clothing and tools to eat the kinds of food some of us eat?



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
At great risk of extending this topic...

Fire mastery is a great way to keep warm in even the harshest winter environments. It’s also a great way to make just about every food more edible and digestible. It even makes some inedible or poisonous food palatable.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Well yea, if there's one thing we would've adapted to, it would've been the sun.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
At great risk of extending this topic...

Fire mastery is a great way to keep warm in even the harshest winter environments. It’s also a great way to make just about every food more edible and digestible. It even makes some inedible or poisonous food palatable.
So in order to eat the food stuffs on our own planet we must first modify it in some way. Hmmm. It's almost as though humanity didn't originate here.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You should read better. MORE edible, MORE digestible.

You’re not an alien my dear, you’re just a very naughty girl.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TerraLiga
At great risk of extending this topic...

Fire mastery is a great way to keep warm in even the harshest winter environments. It’s also a great way to make just about every food more edible and digestible. It even makes some inedible or poisonous food palatable.
... Hmmm. It's almost as though humanity didn't originate here.

Did you notice the religious fanaticism, missionary zeal and vitriol aimed towards you for merely asking a question about evolution? You didn't even imply that we aren't the product of evolution, yet you're taking a full load anyway. In one comment alone the following words have been used to describe your commentary, questions or state of mind: "absurdly, mind-bogglingly uninformed and ridiculous", "absurdly dumb", "impressively uninformed" and "Ive never seen such an inaccurate/ironic user name..."; on previous pages I've seen similar comments from others. The last one is quite familiar to me btw, seems to be a favorite around here.

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism.
...
Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

... Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) ...

You may want to check out the preceding page for that article:

Is It a Fact? (Awake!—1981)

Note that the tactic described in the first sentence of the article I was quoting from above, can also be called a reverse appeal to pride that plays on people's fears of seeming stupid, "uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant", and to add some from Maroboduus, "ridiculous" or "dumb". You can find detailed examples of how leading evolutionists have used these terms in this manner in the box at the end of the article I was quoting from, sometimes it's not always obvious that they're pushing these buttons (note the implied inverse on some occasions in these quotations). But once you are familiar with some of their tricks (and the effect it has on the flock and their consequent behaviour), you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way.

Both the tricks as well as how to do this evaluation are discussed in more detail in the article in my signature. If you go to the previous page for that article the specific tactics of 'playing on the emotions' and more specifically a reverse appeal to pride that plays on people's fears of seeming stupid, etc. (anything negative), are discussed in more detail. So that's playing on 2 emotions at once (and sometimes this behaviour is even taken to the point of playing on a 3rd, hatred, which can involve name-calling, another subject discussed seperately on that page, just before "Playing on the Emotions"). The 2nd page that is actually linked in my signature focusses more on evaluation techniques. Note the arrows located to the top-right of the text for switching back and forth between those 2 pages.
edit on 21-9-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Mammals went from being nocturnal to diurnal after the dinosaurs died, that's maybe why our eyes and skin don't like the sun much.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xabi87

Will this evolve in the future?



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xabi87
Mammals went from being nocturnal to diurnal after the dinosaurs died, that's maybe why our eyes and skin don't like the sun much.
Everyone seems to have missed the words "on Earth" in my thread title.
Now as we know/think the alleged gray aliens have pale skin and very large eyes which seem to be almost entirely pupils....and this would lead to the supposition that they evolved under extremely low light conditions....and if, just "if" okay?... and if we are a mixture of their alien DNA and primate DNA it would make sense that our bodies are not as compatible with our sun as the rest of the animal life on the planet.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TerraLiga
At great risk of extending this topic...

Fire mastery is a great way to keep warm in even the harshest winter environments. It’s also a great way to make just about every food more edible and digestible. It even makes some inedible or poisonous food palatable.
... Hmmm. It's almost as though humanity didn't originate here.

Did you notice the religious fanaticism, missionary zeal and vitriol aimed towards you for merely asking a question about evolution? You didn't even imply that we aren't the product of evolution, yet you're taking a full load anyway. In one comment alone the following words have been used to describe your commentary, questions or state of mind: "absurdly, mind-bogglingly uninformed and ridiculous", "absurdly dumb", "impressively uninformed" and "Ive never seen such an inaccurate/ironic user name..."; on previous pages I've seen similar comments from others. The last one is quite familiar to me btw, seems to be a favorite around here.

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism.
...
Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

... Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) ...

You may want to check out the preceding page for that article:

Is It a Fact? (Awake!—1981)

Note that the tactic described in the first sentence of the article I was quoting from above, can also be called a reverse appeal to pride that plays on people's fears of seeming stupid, "uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant", and to add some from Maroboduus, "ridiculous" or "dumb". You can find detailed examples of how leading evolutionists have used these terms in this manner in the box at the end of the article I was quoting from, sometimes it's not always obvious that they're pushing these buttons (note the implied inverse on some occasions in these quotations). But once you are familiar with some of their tricks (and the effect it has on the flock and their consequent behaviour), you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way.

Both the tricks as well as how to do this evaluation are discussed in more detail in the article in my signature. If you go to the previous page for that article the specific tactics of 'playing on the emotions' and more specifically a reverse appeal to pride that plays on people's fears of seeming stupid, etc. (anything negative), are discussed in more detail. So that's playing on 2 emotions at once (and sometimes this behaviour is even taken to the point of playing on a 3rd, hatred, which can involve name-calling, another subject discussed seperately on that page, just before "Playing on the Emotions"). The 2nd page that is actually linked in my signature focusses more on evaluation techniques. Note the arrows located to the top-right of the text for switching back and forth between those 2 pages.
A person would have to be pretty stupid not to agree with that (Sarcastic irony).




top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join