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.

 

Opposable Thumbs

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I just noticed that, in this post, you’re referring to me and my replies in your earlier thread and then misrepresenting what I said. Let’s clear a few things up…


One blogger has even told me there is no way to tell when DNA has been tampered with, but turns around and says these changes have been witnessed in the wild. WTF!

I’m not a blogger. What I said was that every mechanism of DNA alteration that you cited as examples of things that can only be done in a lab have been observed occurring in nature. There is no way to distinguish between when it’s done in a lab and when it occurs naturally, especially given that you’re only evidence that there is a way of distinguishing between the two is a fictitious “blue laminate”. You went on to state the color of the DNA backbone changed, even though you can’t explain why it would. When confronted with the lack of any evidence or sources for information on your fictitious “blue laminate”, you retreated to saying that it information must have been deleted from the internet or that your internet provider was censoring the information.


Someone replied to me on here indicating that on a rare occasion, methylation occurs naturally in the wild. Another words, a rare virus and rare circumstance has altered specific gene segments, and is somehow able to to recreate the complex steps necessary to alter DNA.

I didn’t “indicate”, I gave you peer-reviewed research that showed, objectively, that methylation occurs in nature. It’s not even remotely rare, as it is observed in every biological kingdom on this planet. You simply dismissed the peer-reviewed research as “fake” without ever reading it.


Evolutionists can call the bible a fairy tale, they can call Pye a fraud, call Von Daniken a fraud, call Sitchen a fraud, assume there is no other life in the cosmos, call my 3 decades of study of the paranormal a waste of time, and assume the DNA findings are inconclusive or not proof.

My calling the Bible a book of fairy tales and calling Pye, von Däniken, and Sitchin frauds have nothing to do with my being a proponent of the theory of evolution. It’s because there’s zero objective evidence that the Bible described factual events and the claims of Pye, von Däniken, and Sitchin have been repeatedly refuted and debunked.


I have gotten a lot of feedback about little to no information anyone can find about the laminate or its color, and Lloyd Pye’s video is not accepted by most evolutionists.

Not “anyone”, it’s information that you can’t even find. When pressed to provide a source, you retreated to saying that it information must have been deleted from the internet or that your internet provider was censoring the information. There’s no such thing as DNA “laminate”.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
You have to take a step back and observe how mutated the human race really is - its genetic engineering, and very amateurish genetic engineering at that.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh wow. Defense by wall o' text. Okay, where to start.


Originally posted by itsthetooth
First of all I think it’s important to make clear that I’m not trying to start my own religion, and I’m not a messiah. Most of the concerning feedback I have received seems to be coming from the believers in the evolution theory, and disagreements about the DNA. If it wasn’t clear in my original OP (which I recommend you read first if you haven’t already)(also beware I might repeat some things here). There are obvious reasons why people would seek out the path of evolution for answers to our existence. People will always struggle looking for answers until they open their eyes, mind, and look for some common sense clues. I left out a lot of explanation that would have covered this area, because I assumed that most already knew about all of this.


Your validity pretty much shoots out the window when you denigrate science with the exultation of "Open your eyes, man!" - yeah, uh, that's actually what science is. Conclusion drawn from observed facts. Ypu start talking about common sense, but from reading your post, I get the notion that your definition of "common snese" is "anything I say"

Not at all, when there are scientific findings supported by documented history, supported by many that don't believe in the same direction, I say it's pretty remarkable actually.



Many different videos I have watched are referencing the change of DNA in visual form. One blogger has even told me there is no way to tell when DNA has been tampered with, but turns around and says these changes have been witnessed in the wild. WTF! My eyes aren’t that good and any attempts of observation that I’m aware of must be done with equipment in a lab.


Really? Really? How about you apply some of that common sense?
1) collect specimen in the field
2) Bring specimen to the lab for diagnostics.

Ya I know the only problem is where is this field exactly and what is it exposed to that we know of, what we don't know of?


DNA defects and Mutations are being accepted by evolutionists as proof that we evolved from primates.


Actually no, that proof is in physiology, genetics, and paleontology. Mutations simply provide a possible explanation for that development. You can't point at "mutations" and go "aha! We used to be fish!". Mutations happen anyway, and they are simply supporting evidence for the bigger picture.

Then please explain that to itendonrizereo.


For some reason I always thought mutations were accidents, and unwanted, but do occur. Either way, there is no proof that there is not some type of intervention or something explainable to cause it to happen. The question is weather or not its natural.


"There is no proof that there is not..."
See, there' your big mistake. Logic does not work this way; it is impossible to prove a negative. It is only possible to compare positive proofs and deduct the most plausible. You don't have any proof that I am not actually your father, should you therefore start addressing me as "dad"? Of course not.

Precisly what zero is doing. Thank you for clearing this up for me.


Of course it’s not, otherwise standard elements of offspring would be expected to change all the time. Rather than two feet, some people might have 3,4,5, or 6 or more feet as an example.


Another fallacy. You're basing your position here on the notion that mutation is random. It's not. It's unpredictable, which is a wholly different thing.

Sooo random is predictable ????

Say you have a bag of yellow, green, red, and white jellybeans. Every time you grab a handful, the resulting mix of colors in your hand will be unpredictable, but you know you will never come up with a purple or blue jellybeans; This is representative of your "normal" organism, which is a sort of grab-bag from regular, predictable genes.

Ah ok, I think I see how this works. But how did you first determine there were only yellow, green, red and white?

Every now and again though, you might come up with a pair of jellybeans that are fused together, or one where the dye didn't get all the way through the candy, or is slightly bigger or smaller than the average jellybean. You've still got jellybeans, and they're still in the neighborhood of hte four colors we started out with, but are slightly different; variations on a theme. That's mutation.

Of course you could end up with a pink jelly bean, which could have stemmed from the red being weak. I guess my point in this is you would be smart enough to know it stemmed from the red not being congruent, correct? Why are they not able to do this in our examples of DNA evolution?

Your claim would be as if you had a bag of jellybeans that occasionally produced hedgehogs and elemental mercury when you grabbed a handful; that would be random.

???


Someone replied to me on here indicating that on a rare occasion, methylation occurs naturally in the wild. Another words, a rare virus and rare circumstance has altered specific gene segments, and is somehow able to to recreate the complex steps necessary to alter DNA. I don’t believe it, but even if it was true, there is still that lack of proof that it happened to us, in an evolution manner.


Actually it happens fairly often. whenever a virus infects a cell, it injects its own DNA that then attatches to DNA in that cell, which then starts replicating viruses. Sometimes, that cell will survive infection, and when it divides, the virus DNA goes with it. Generally this isn't passed into further generations unless the gametes of an organism are infected. However in organisms that reproduce asexually, those virus DNA DO get passed on.

And I agree with you, but how is it that there is no proof of this virus and it magically dissapeared? Leaving the alleged DNA changes?


Whether it has impacted our evolution or not is a good question. However, it does seem to be a major impact on Bacterial evolution, along with gene-swapping between bacteria themselves.


I have seven things that tell me there was alien intervention that caused our altered sections of DNA. Evolutionists have nothing more than the idea that we could have evolved, but seem to be missing all of the pieces of this theory. There are theory’s followed with theory’s followed with theory’s and not one shred of hard core evidence for any of them.


Again with the ignorance. A scientific theory is not a "hunch." It's a predicted outcome that's been supported time and time again by piles - mountains really - of evidence. it's been tested, retested, examined, poked, prodded, and for all i know, deep-fat-fried, and found to be solid and factual no matter the rigors it's put through. It might as well be called the law of evolution; really the only thing that prevents it from being so is that a scientific law must be a universal constant; since we only know of life on earth, it's possible that life has developed in some other odd way elsewhere. every scientific theory - from evolution to plate tectonics to cells, atoms, and circuits, is supported by a huge body of evidence - else it wouldn't be a theory.

I honestly don't consider my first OP to be a theory, it looks more like its solved to me. In fact as far as I'm concearned it's the closest to anything I have ever seen in my life that explains how humans first appeared on earth.


I don’t see that with my findings. I feel comfortable that most if not all of it is pretty solid. Evolutionists can call the bible a fairy tale, they can call Pye a fraud, call Von Daniken a fraud, call Sitchen a fraud, assume there is no other life in the cosmos, call my 3 decades of study of the paranormal a waste of time, and assume the DNA findings are inconclusive or not proof. I think there are too many things in my favor here.


The Bible is more of a cultural epic than a fairy tale; Fairy tales are simple fables with a singular lesson. The Bible's up there with the Kalevala, the Upanishads, the Iliad, and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

And I would agree again with you, if I didn't understand it. Sorry to say, that after I realized the truth behind it, and some odd missunderstandings brought into focus, it makes total sense to me. If I have ever been sure of anything in my life, I can tell you this takes the cake.

Pye is indeed a fraud. Every time he gets a "human" answer about his skulls, he dismisses it as a great conspiracy against himself, and then tries to get someone else to answer. Basically he's got a conclusion and no evidence.

Well Pye is not perfect, you have to realize that first. I never stated that I believe everything that comes from Pye, I don't know all of his beliefs. I will say this however, his information confirmed what I already figured out in all of this. Isn't that a shocker? So I guess Sitchen is also a fraud, and Von Daniken as well right? And dont forget to dismiss my over 3 decades of study into the paranormal.

Von Daniken is just sadly ignorant. He's of the "brown people can't stack rocks" school of thought on archaeology. This is the notion that while the Romans and Franks needed absolutely no intervention whatsoever in building their massive architectural wonders, the people of Rapa Nui had to have aliens come show them how to move their moai (even though the islanders demonstrated how to do it to later explorers). it's a steep cultural bias that, until recently, saturated western Archaeology. Basically all of these "ancient mysteries" are only mysteries if you come to the field with the presupposition that people outside classical-modern western Europe are absolute morons.

Your kidding me ???? Please man, come on. We still can't move them LOL.
Your once again agreeing we de evolved, not evolved.

Sitchen isn't just a fraud; he's a malignant liar and a cultural butcher. He not only has no idea what he's talking about in ANY of the many fields he tries to cover (as varied as history, linguistics, evolutionary biology, theology, and astrophysics) but worse than that he actively makes crap up just to make a good story to sell to folks like you. Good for his pocketbook, I guess - I'd exploit a market niche if I found it, too - but is just horribly dumb when it comes to anything other than entertainment value.

Again I only know some of his direction as well. I'm convinced his understanding with us being slaves to mine gold for God, is dead on, and matches with scriptures else where including the bible.

Your three decades weren't wasted so long as you enjoyed them, I guess. Your results are ridiculous, but hey, it's the journey that matters.

I guess we will Hopfully know in the near future right? I'll be the one laughing while you are saying to yourself " damn, the nazda lines werent fake!"


We have no proof of stages of evolution much less proof or reason why it ever happened. What we do however have, is mass amounts of redundant aptation which is the opposite of evolving, but could be mistaken as such by desperate evolution seekers.


Lots of proof, actually. As for the reason... Well, what makes you think there has to be a reason? This is a creationist problem, the assumption that everything has meaning or purpose, some grand plan in the sky.It doesn't. Evolution is simply a consequence of reproduction in an inconstant environment (namely, Earth)

I disagree with that statement, I think there is reason and meaning to everything, including change. Otherwise you could step outside tomorrow and turn into a bowl of jello with no reason much less understanding.

Also you seem to be stuck on the notion that there is a "goal" to evolution, that it's a system of progress. it's not. It's simply the collection of changes within given organism populations. Some may be an improvement in one regard, a disadvantage in another, and neutral in all others. And if the conditions change, then all that may jumble into some other arrangement of advantage / disadvantage.

I get the notion that you don't actually understand the concepts you're trying to argue against.

No I do, but I think my biggest problem when I try to research them is always coming up with people getting busted for fraudulent claims. It's just horrible. I never said I don't believe it's possible, I think it is, in theory. Unfortunatly it's a theory, supported by a theory, supported by a theory, so it's watered down soup at this point.

And here we go; let's see how well you understand evolution, but reality itself!


I didn’t think it would be necessary to cover examples of just how bad off we are in our adaptation, but I guess I have to. Evolutionists seem to feel we have evolved in leaps and bounds. Lets look at that for a tad. I could almost pick anything to start with but lets look at shoes. We made shoes because our feet would be subject to severe damage otherwise. Mother nature kicked back by giving us fungus, calluses, blisters, arch problems, bunions, and many other problems. If this was evolution, it sucks.


Yep. Our feet are fragile. Especially if, like most people posting on this board, you travel in layers of socks and shoes all the time. However there are lots and lots and lots of people the world over who go barefoot. Do they suffer damage to their feet? Sure. So does every other organism with feet. Ever seen what can happen to a hoof? And shoes are no real safeguard from harm; ever gotten athlete's foot? Stepped on a nail? chafed? Blistered?

Well thats a good observation, I need to clairify that I wasn't trying to say we would have perfect feet on our home planet, but more so that it just wouldn't be as bad as it is here.


Here is one of my favorites, living indoors. We basically had to recreate all of the necessities because it’s not easily available like it should be to support us. This adaptation includes but is not limited to: Heat, AC, Carpet or hard flooring, Plumbed water services, ventilation, Stove, fridge, Washer dryer to wash adaptive clothing, Dishes and utensils to eat with. If we had actually evolved we would not have needed any of these things. It’s plain and simple, we didn’t evolve, we have adapted, and if you look at almost anything you deal with in everyday life, you will most likely see adaptation. When we adapt, it’s because we failed to evolve.


Ah, once again we encountered the narrow perceptions of a spoiled and pampered westerner. Yes, all those things are great for our comfort and well-being... but we don't actually need them. It's perfectly possible for humans to live without any of hat you just outlined. Granted, having no more protection than the hair on your butt would make living in, say, Alaska rather difficult, but that just goes to show that we, as a species, are not really well-adapted to arctic and subarctic conditions.

Ever wonder why that is ?????????????????????

We do really well in subtropical forest, though.

Oh ok, so we were only supppose to live in subtropical forests ah ha.


Another example I can give is our food options. There are very limited circumstances where you might be able to get by for a short time, living in the wild without adaptation. At best it’s not healthy for us. Just in our food options, we have desperately resorted to processed food, as yet another type of adaptation. It’s another clue that something is not here, that we need in our diet. Our adaptation history has not only blinded us to whats going on, but it’s making us sick. Of course this again is NOT evolution, it’s adaptation. Evolving would have been us getting use to whats available, and whats not, and just accepting things the way they are rather than trying to make new foods, and process them. Evolutionists might say thats our decision and not a need so it’s our fault. But why did we do it to begin with? It’s because we feel that something is missing from our intended diet. Our need for adaptation is so strong that we even breed animals for meat otherwise we would get sick and die. I don’t know how much more obvious this mess can be, we aren’t from here. We even cut and maintain our lawn and gardens to fit our needs and prevent problems associated with our needs. It’s an example of us trying to make other things adapt to our needs. Again, it’s not a good idea of evolution.


Actually the wilderness is absolutely chock full of food sources that are perfectly nutritious, even tasty to eat. If you're informed. It would appear that outdoor survival is another subject with which you are unfamiliar. I'll bet you've never chowed down on grasshopper. Snake eggs? Can you identify mushrooms? Do you know the differences between a root, a tuber, and a bulb? What's the difference between wild parsnip and water hemlock?

Your killing me here. Notice how it's phrased "survival" there is a reason for that. Because it doesn't come natural to us, and why is that? Because it's not natural thats why, at least not on this planet.

We've "resorted to" processed food due primarily to civilizational concerns; most people in our neck of the world don't have the time, knowledge, or territory to engage in subsistence or practical farming. This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or adaptations, it's simply a matter of feeding a large number of people who cannot feed themselves.

Yes it could appear that way if your missing the overall picture.


It wasn’t until I realized how the paranormal, was actually a major part of the bible.


The fact that it hinges around a magic fire-breathing ghost didn't tip you off to start with?


Eric Von Danakin’s “Chariots of the Gods” claims that the city burned in Sodom and Gamora was by an atomic bomb, and that the Ark of the covenant was a radio device.


And it's all there, the guy is a genius, I have to hand it to him.

1) Atomic bombs leave evidence. Lots of evidence. For one, they're, you know, radioactive. Two, they leave telltale geologic formations. None of these exist in the region.
2) He could claim it's a sex toy for wild yaks if he likes; since we do not have any evidence of the thing whatsoever, it could be anything anyone says it is.


One of my close friends that is also into the paranormal tells me there are even walkie talkies in the bible called “gems.”


Don't suppose he could cite scripture for this?

I'm going to try to call him again tonight, it shocked me too. He has read over 6 different versions in 3 different languages as well and says there are remarkable simularitys between them all.


It’s not shocking, the bible is actually full of advanced technology and this is a major reason why people have had such a hard time understanding and accepting it. Trying to spot the technology, and understanding it compounds the frustration for sure if your not open to it. Whats even harder to grasp is that this wasn’t all because god and other alien life helping him were so much more advanced than us, but because God had altered us, and made us dumb and powerless in order to keep us as faithful slaves. So much so, he had to issue us the ten commandments. Our race is probably as old and as intelligent as his is. Keep in mind he set us back about 192,000 years by erasing our memory’s, and removing some of our higher ability’s.


Okay. Show me God, please, and I'll take the rest of your argument from there. I'll wait.

Google anything about Mitocondria DNA, it tells you how old are species is.


Jesus had his powers, and aliens like to play god / the creator or scientist. I think most people always assumed that God was the father but that goes against every grain of the idea of a creator. It would in essence be mixing races, but also admitting he could have made us better to begin with. We assumed he was the father because his intervention helped created Jesus. But stealing sperm from a normal human they abducted off our home planet (Heaven) and putting it in Mary does not make him the father. Once again he is a mad scientist. Aliens like to play the creator. Artificial insemination does not make you the creator. Jesus’s biological father had unaltered genes, and thus allowed Mary to have a NORMAL human. This is why people have never figured any of this out. Jesus was not special, he was normal. We are the oddballs. So if you ever want to know what type of powers we are missing, just think about how Jesus was, and there you have it. Of course God made sure to retrieve the body of Jesus knowing that leaving his DNA here could set us all free one day.


Again, since your entire argument hinges on this God, or whatever it is, you need to present some evidence of this creature before you extrapolate from it.

Well I use a decision taught to me from my father whom was a an actuall detective. People don't lie, the person lies. Now on rare ocasions we have conspiciracys but in this case it looks like there were to many people involved in the bible for it to be completly made up.


There is of course no question in my mind, we did not come from primates.


Of course not, because you don't actually know anything about the subject at hand. Unfortunately, we are indeed primates. We're decended from primates and our own descendants will also be primates.

So at what point were we no longer compatible with them sexually so that our species can go on?


It could be confusing because all life (that we know of anyhow) seems to be constructed from the same limited selection of proteins. In addition to this, there seems to be patterns of things about creation in general. Of course complex arrangements of those are what make all life very different from each other. To make things more complicated, human DNA panels are almost identical to primates. Evo followers hang on this as though it’s some type of support to our existence.


In other words, who are we going to believe; our own eyes, or some crank on hte internet telling us that they're ling?

Well I see things from a completly different angle because I don't think all life is only here on earth.

Here's the thing; give me a microscope and a fruit fly, and I'll show you a chromosome. What will it take for you to show me your god?

Well it's a good thing you asked. People ask me if I believe in god, and thats a loaded question. As far as belief goes, I would believe more like you do, than anyone religious. However, I do believe he existed at one time, and that he wasn't in fact our creator, and that he used us. So faith in common understanding is bad.

There is a reason why he hid his face, Not sure if you have ever hid from anyone, or anyone from you, maybe you can understand whats going on here. We knew him, well his race anyhow.


I look at it like it should be close as we are similar in many ways. That doesn’t mean that we are related. These different views only stem from one thing. The idea or belief of the possibility of other life in the cosmos. You see if there are hundreds of thousands of other humanoid life out there, you might more easily accept and understand how humans are most likely not related to primates, especially when there is other life that we would have a lot more in common with. Adding more complexity is the sections that are allowed to change from parent offsprings, might have been mistaken for sections that aren’t suppose to change.


Of course, your argument is, once again, hinging on an unproven hypothetical - that there are hundreds of thousands of other humanoids out in the universe. We don't know if there are or not; you've certainly failed to present any quantifiable evidence.

well we will probably never be able to overcome that hurdle because scientists cant identify the unknown, and say it's alien untill we show up at their doorstep and ask for DNA for comparison.

But let's run with it. If the universe really is like Star Trek, populated with a metric furk-ton of "people with funny ears" then I'll bet you, dollars to donuts, their worlds are inhabited by creatures very similar to our primates, and their genetic codes will be very similar to those creatures (and probably completely alien to our own, actually)

Of course, what if we do discover spacefaring people and they turn out to be radially symmetrical hermaprodites who navigate by tasting via jelly-like extrusions? What a conceit, that all intelligent life i nthe universe must be "humanoid"

Nevertheless, we have absolutely no evidence of such extraterrestrial creatures. What we do have evidence of is terrestrial primates. we also have evidence that physiologically and genetically we are VERY closely related to these other earth creatures. And they (and we as well) are very close to rodents and lagomorphs, who... Well, I'll spare you the cladistics, but suffice it to say that humans are known Laurasiatheres.

If you don't believe in other life in the cosmos I can see why you might think an ape could be your brother.


On the other hand if you don’t believe in other life, it’s easy to accept evolution as the only possibility, since it’s all your willing to see.


Of course, even if your blind hypothesis is true, it doesn't make evolution false. If humans were "designed" then where did the designers come from? Have we just sat here, unchanged, for however long? Obviously not, for that question. Did these designers also craft everything from Hallucigenia to Pan troglodytes to Brassica oleracea and Vandellia cirrhosa? If not, where did they come from? Why are there dugongs and manatees? And what was the point of a Steller's sea cow when you already had not one but two perfectly good Sirenideans? And why do all three look like aquatic elephants?


The theory’s I have observed in evolution are nothing short of idiotic. It’s as though they are reaching into the depths of nothing to try to make sense of things, and I’m not saying that to be hateful, it just obvious.


Or, alternately, it could just be that you don't actually understand anything about evolution at all, and favor the notion that you were "specially created" by magical invisible aliens because it makes you feel unique and soothes your ego?

Actually the reverse. I would be more at ease simply believing we came from primates. Just like believing the bible is a fairy tale, and God was made up. Sometimes easy is not correct.

Zo, tell me uff yoor muzzer...


I could say the same thing about the belief in aliens but there are some shocking differences. From 4 million contact reports, according to wikipedia, over 1/2 are gray aliens. The story’s are almost always simular in many aspects. It’s shocking how there can be so many reports, yet we actually know very little about them.


Yes. For the same reason 90% of depictions of Jesus show him as a six-foot white guy with blue eyes and hippy-hair. Not because he actually looked that way, but simply because the culture says "this is what Jesus looks like."

I wish they had cameras back then.

Four million contact reports sounds really impressive! Of course, that comes out to 0.057% of the world population. There are more people in the world who think slurping water out of the Ganges will cure AIDS than who have reported contact with aliens (go look at some pictures of the Ganges, tell me what you think of that belief system, eh?)

Well if we all feared we were about to be killed by aliens, your comparison would be fair.

And that we know so little of them has a pretty simple explanation; it's make-believe. We know very little about the ecology and culture of leprechauns and gaki, as well.

We know NOTHING that proves we came from primates, but 4 million people are reporting to have alien contact and thats false?
Keep believing that, they want you to.


Something is VERY WRONG.


Your hypothesis, for one.


Even F.E.M.A. believes in aliens. Chapter 13 of there rescue manual explains in detail that approaching an alien or crash site could cause specific things to happen. From your lights on the car going out, to the cars engine just dying and losing all electricity. They could lose contact with the dispatcher for an unpredicted amount of time.


Yep. It's one of those "just in case" things. It hinges on "popular accounts" - that is, FEMA is basically writing a "just in case" section based primarily on the vapid woo-woo of people who think aliens are very interested in having sex with them.

Well how come they didn't write a chapter on how to handle mutations or accounts of evolving?


I think evolutionists think I enjoy the idea of alien life.


Most people do, actually. It's pretty neat. And to be honest? Discovering alien life is almost an evolutionary biologist's wet dream. (Almost because, hey, barnacles)


Honestly, do you think anyone in there right mind would want to expose themselves to these types of possibility’s?


Considering the sort of stuff people do to themselves in the course of day-to-day life, I don't see how kicking hte tires on a UFO would be much worse. i mean really, have you ever had American "beer"? I'll take an alien ray-gun over PBR anytime, thanks.


Part of the reason why some find it so hard to understand or accept any of this is due to what God did to us, putting us in the dumb down factor. We were set back 192,000 years. It sucks.


Well, again, you have failed to present evidence of this "god" creature. Nor have you defined exactly what you mean by "set back" nor how you've arrived at this very specific number.


Every contact report we hear about, we are always the ones out of control.


Yep, it's part and parcel with the "Hey look at me!" nature of UFO encounters. Basically the witness is seeking attention, and they attempt to make their story "meaningful" by spewing some new-age claptrap about how bad humans are. it's like Fern Gully except the aliens aren't slutty fairies. (Well ,actually given that they don't really exist, and have a tendency towards nymphomania, maybe they ARE...)

And they get so much positive attention don't they ???????? google the guy that can actually summon UFOS, it has a shocking ending.

Option B is that these aliens are dumb as all hell, since they ALWAYS abduct the woo-wooiest people who wanted to be abducted anyway, who universally have no actual voice or ability to change anything in their society, and they always do it clandestinely. Really, if these guys wanted to give us "an important message" how damn hard would it be to just hijack a satellite signal and be like "Guys? You're messing up your rock. Here's how you can stop doing that."

And you realize this just now because your species is 200,000 years old, right.


Missing 192,000 years of our lineage and some of our abilitys I’m sure has something to do with it.


Again with that number. Again with talk of "abilities." Where's your evidence, man?


They seem to always be in control, erase our memory, and always have that technological edge over us.


Ever notice that "their technology" keeps pace with the technology of America? And seems to closely mirror the technologies in Sci-Fi movies and TV shows? Coincidence?

Nope, it's only that we don't recognize it for what it is, untill we make it ourselves. This is also why UFO's are called unidentified flying objects, we haven't made any yet, well not any we can't identify anyhow.


Powers of the mind have won them that edge.


What powers? Who? EVIDENCE, muther futher, do you speak it?!?!


As mentioned in my first OP, our mitocondrial DNA shows we are 200,000 years old. That ALONE should tell you what is going on here.


Indeed it does. It tells me that you very sincerely haven't got the first idea what the hell you are talking about. You're referring to the "Mitochondrial eve," a female human roughly two hundred thousand years ago, who is the many-squared-great-grandmother of the world's current crop of humans. She is our most recent common female ancestor. This is a different thing entirely from "first ever," much less "only."

Which simply adds more to my direction.


I covered much thought in proving that we are not from earth, long before I found out that it actually tells us so, in black and white in the bible. The problem is that evo folks don’t usually believe in the bible either. So I guess to evolutionists it doesn’t matter that the bible, DNA and severe lack of evolution evidence all points in the same direction.


Except that DNA and the mounds of evidence that you keep conveniantly ignoraing point in a totally different direction from "God did it."

Well you might say evolution could have made those changes, but for some shocking reason they are unable to prove how that happened. They are however able to prove when that happened. Oddly enough, it dates back to when the blble places us here. Which once again leaves us with our missing 192,000 years of lineage, what a coincendence huh?


Evo peeps would believe that we made a choice to evolve into what we are today from primates.


lolwhut?
Thats what some are telling me.

I'm afraid that this is such a gross mischaracterization of fact that it's best classified as "blatant lie." There is no "choice," some human antecedent did not go "Horf dorf, I'mma be human someday!" This is the sort of nonsense that people like you believe the scientifically educated believe because again you do not have, nor do you actually want to understand the actual science, preferring instead to lie and mischaracterize.


The problem is we are missing the mass amounts of proof that should be here from our lineage. How is it that we can find dinosaur bones but not human evolution bones? There are claims of a very few found, but those are in deep question and we certainly didn’t start out from one or two. Keep in mind, if you think we evolved, then you are saying we did all of it here on earth, why is there no proof?


Because some people are very, very dim, and don't know how to use the google?

Really man? We've got thousands of specimens of just Homo erectus, covering a span of over a million years, from multiple regions of the globe, showing several stages and varieties of adaptation. We have many such specimens for dozens of human species. And thanks to the zany human habit of preserving the dead, we have absolutely no shortage whatsoever of H. sapiens. we've also got scads of specimens that don't "fit cleanly" - you might call them "missing links" if such unscientific nomenclature is what you enjoy. "Transitional species" is another good one. "Grandpa" works in a pinch.

You might ??? could you call them another species ????

We know far less about dinosaurs than we do about our own lineage (hell, we apparently just discovered the notion that some dinosaur "species" are in fact juveniles of other species). Even so, we DO know an awful lot about dinosaurs; all that's left to learn about humans are the fine details, really.


At least with the alien direction, there is a simple answer why there is little to no known accepted proof. They don’t live here, they are advanced, and even when we do get proof, scientists call it an unknown.


Uncited proof dismissed by unnamed scientists, from an unknown race that left no proof anyway. ooookay!


This doesn’t mean you should just accept and believe everything you hear about aliens, but when 4 million people attest to there existence, don’t you think it just might be possible?


Roughly a hundred and fifty million Americans ascribe to the political beliefs that say "cutting taxes reduces the deficit." Over a billion people worldwide believe that eating beef will make them suffer in their next reincarnation. So no, the testimony of four million people - not one of them with anything tangible - doesn't sway me very much.

Agreed, but what about the ones reporting it when they actually don't believe in aliens ??????

Of course alien life might be possible. However, we currently have absolutely no evidence of it, and certainly no evidence that these aliens fiddled with life on Earth. And it's the evidence that counts.

Isaiah 6, read, it, see if you can figure it out. Even better the first pages of how adam and eve just apeared out of nowhere, how is that possible, how could they know know where they came from, easy, I know how, but if you don't have 3 decades of the paranormal under your belt, it looks stupid.


Not to mention that some of these people reporting this don’t even believe in aliens. I moved way past this part of acceptance when I thought about one simple thing, over 5 million species exist on earth alone.


Five million? Man, that's a hell of a lowball estimate! And doesn't even take into account three and a half billion years' worth of extinct species. You think magical invisible aliens had a finger in each of them?

No they didn't, but we might have some species here that are not indiginous other than ourselves.


Isn’t it ignorant to think we are the ONLY intelligent life ever created?


Nope. See, ignorance is a state that depends on the existence of information. One can only be ignorant of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, if there is information of such life to be had. currently there is none. Now it could be that the entire population of earth is just ignorant of such information, which I guess would technically be true. But disbelieving in something due to a total lack of supporting evidence is not ignorance, it's critical thought.

There are very good complicated reasons why we don't and wont have proof for some time. Unlike our missing bones of evolution, there is simply no excuse.


It’s hard to accept the idea that whoever or whatever created us decided to cram all of life’s creations on one small, and limited planet, and not anywhere else out in the cosmos. Pretend for the moment that you had this great gift of creation. Would you stop at one planet? No you wouldn’t. If there is a creator of life out there, I know what he is doing right now. He’s making more, because thats what he does. A strong desire to understand our existence through evolution has led us astray, and I totally understand, we all want to know what happened that brought us here. When I’m unable to un flag things that don’t make sense, I cant accept the theory.


Of course, it's just as hard to accept that we're not some lonely floating rock encrusted with gibbering protein-masses. We currently don't know either way. Could we be alone? Sure. Could the universe be densely populated? Sure. We don't know. Until we know one way or another, the question is ultimately irrelevant. We work with what we have, which is proving to be more than sufficient for perfectly good and sensible answers.

If you think we evolved from goo, I watched a video that stated the chances on that are like .02 to the 21st power, and thats just in our creation, not including the planet that supports much less the other life.


Which is, of course, why you completely ignore all the evidence we have on Earth that life on earth started on Earth and developed as a response to Earthly conditions.

It's simple man, our mtDNA does not match the life time of earth, common sense.


Evolution is full of flags, not just one, but a plethora of flags. The sad part is there is simply no excuse for us not having any proof that any of the theory’s apply. If you still feel we originated from earth. Here are some examples to think about.


Actually (Again) there's tons of evidence for evolution. That you choose to completely ignore all of it as the basis of your argument doesn't actually mean it's not there. Covering your eyes doesn't make things vanish.

And not one part that can be tied to us, like I said, its a nice theory. If you told me aliens stole the proof at least I would have some type of a reason as wrong as it sounds


The problem I keep running into with examples of adaptation being accepted as evolution, is you have to first realize there was a reason why we did it to begin with! Again, because something was wrong to begin with. I would say we spend most of our lives, and time, just adapting. Thats all we do in order to survive here.


Of course, if you had the first clue about evolution, you'd know that individual efforts of adaptation are entirely irrelevant to evolution. That's lamarckism, and it's bunk. See, evolution is the result of natural selection on entire populations, not the individuals of those populations. Those organisms that reproduce the most are the ones whose inheritable traits survive the longest in the population; most often reproductive success mirrors compatibility with a given environment, but can also reflect sexually attractive traits (peacock tails, for instance.) Sometimes it can even be dumb luck. This lottery of traits spreading through a population and becoming dominant for whatever reasons are evolution.

It's full of holes is the only problem.

My theory has NO holes and is backed up by to many others. Maybe everyone is wrong and your right.


Forced adaptation is NOT evolution. If anything, we de-evolved, and humans having less DNA than primates is a cold dose of reality on this subject.


There's no such thing as "de-evolution." It's like calling night "de-daying." Whatever evolution does is evolution.

I know, but I call it that because primates have it way better than we do.


Humans have two less DNA strands that appear to be fused. Fusing is a lab technique and not found naturally in the wild. Evolutionists would disagree but there is still no proof thats why it happened to us.


Actually it is found naturally in the wild; humans exhibit this. We're at the disadvantage of being the sole survivor of our Genus; It'd be interesting to collect samples from our cousins to see if anyone further back in line still has the full Pan chromosome arrangement.

It's an oversight. Our DNA only looks close because they are humanoid.

Even Pye missed this with his Star child skull. They are not related to us.

Plus and minus chromosomes happen in other organisms, as well. Horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes, yet are undoubtedly related.


Aside, our differences are staggering. If evolution were possible in our relation to them, it must take billions upon billions of years to connect us, and sorry to say but the earth isn’t that old.


Actually, if you were to get with a chimp lady, you could probably make some freakish hybrid with her (no one's tried, weirdly enough. I'd think it's a simple matter of inducing a sperm + ovum and seeing if meiosis succeeds. In vitro, of course!) Hell, the result would probably be fertile - you're closer to that chimp than a horse is to a donkey, genetically speaking.

Thats not what I understood.

If you're staggered by the differences, then I can only conclude that you're easily staggered. The differences between humans and daisies aren't even that staggering. The differences between humans and archaea? Now there's something worth being staggered about.


Either way you slice it, evolution is simply not possible in our existence.


Easy enough to say, when you clearly have no idea what theh ell you're talking about.


Lets look at the human smile. Most other life here on earth smile in a form of aggression. Dogs are a good example. It’s a small clue. Where did we pick up that smile in our alleged evolution? Not that primates can’t smile, they just don’t do it for the same reason. There are different types of smiles as well. There is the happy smile, the forced smile and the misleading smile. It would appear that not only did we want to make our lives harder and more difficult through redundant adaptation but we also wanted to disassociate ourselves with other life in the process?


Yes, there are different types of smiles. This is true outside of humans as well; chimpanzees will grin to show submission and placate an aggressor, as often as using it as a sign of aggression. It's a way of saying "I'm harmless, leave me alone." Which is probably where our own "happy" smile came from. "I'm friendly, don't be mean." of course as you note, that's not the only smile humans use. And the type of smile depends on much more than just a show of teeth; eyebrow position is actually a bigger consideration than teeth.

So how is it working for you here on earth minus interaction with other humans?
did you ever consider that smiling around some animals could be accidently taken as a sign of aggression?


You also, again, make the assumption that evolution is a "choice".

No someone presented it to me, just as their view.


Why is it so difficult for us to agree on how to eat properly? Meat, veggies, junk food, sea food,fast food. Again, it’s not our food is why. God wasn’t so concerned about our health when he dumped us here.


Same reason there are so many different ways of taking a crap and wiping. What, do you think everyone in the world has a commode and toilet tissue?

It's called "culture." Interestingly culture mirrors biological evolution in certain ways (As does linguistics). Memes are the method of transfer there.


It was just what he thought we needed to get by, so we could mine gold for him, to “serve” him.


Ah, there's the Sitchen. Funny that an interstellar being would go through all this trouble to create a species of ape to dig for gold on a gold-poor rock, and not only that, he would create a creature that is so bad at it. This creator alien must have been a moron with far too much time on his hands. Or pseudopods. Whatever he has.


He wasn’t so concerned about our health and life span, in the optimum sense. Let me tell you, if there is a creator that made us, he would be equally as smart to make a planet that would accommodate our specific needs.


But not smart enough to just make a planet out of gold for his own needs, apparently.

Now your getting it, he wasn't the all mighty we have all been missled to believe.


Earth is not our home. We will forever suffer here as we go about our redundant adaptive needs in this blind manner. Doctors have to treat us from birth and ongoing in life for regular things. Some of which is to avoid sickness and disease and sometimes death. Walk down the medication isles of stores, look at the large sections of medical genre listings in any phone book. (Just look at how we havent evolved) We are sick here people, and we have been blind as to why.


Do you think antelopes bitch and moan about how "unevolved" they are because of their vulnerability to anthrax and cheetahs? Maybe cheetahs bitch and moan about how their "creator" didn't make them strong enough to keep hyenas from snatching their kills? for that matter, given how inbred cheetahs are, i'll bet they spend most of their time being crosseyed and licking rocks.

Of course they don't. They didn't have to buy clothing, working a job, cook dinner, wash the dishes, put them away, wash the clothing. I think your missing some paramount things and it's not an issue of bitching or being lazy if I'm coming accross that way, your missing something very big here.


One of the major conditions of life is that stuff can kill you. The world doesn't revolve around you any more than it revolves around the Salmonella bacterium that's giving you food poisoning. Salmonella's gotta live too, even though it sucks for you.

Your correct again, but we endure more of our fair share.


If you think evolution has caused us to become so sick, then you also agree we would be better off to go back to the way we were.


Not really; I assure you we were ill back then, too. Tigers ate the hell out of us back then, too. Evolution is essentially an arms race that nobody is actually winning; we evolve one way, our parasites and predators follow suit.

Meh.

So speaking of parasites, did these alien overlords invent body lice, too? 'Cause there are types of lice that exist ONLY on humans, and ONLY in human body hair and clothing (As opposed to scalp hair, where there are other human-only lice species)

You mean the same ones monkeys eat off of each other ?

If you think our actions to adapt has caused all this sickness, then you have to ask yourself why we were adapting to begin with.


Easy; population. I already went into how to feed a growing and increasingly urban population, we're turning more and more to "processed" foods. Back in Ye Olden Days they had a similar concern; lots of people needed to be fed. The answer was intensive agriculture, including animal husbandry. This led to a lot of disease crossover between humans and their livestock. And since populations were already dense, these diseases proliferated among the human populations and became endemic and even themselves evolved to fit humans (Syphilis, for instance, used to kill people VERY quickly; too quickly for the disease to spread. Spirochetes that caused milder infections spread further and became dominant.)

You missed a big picture again.


Mother nature is not OUR mother. She doesn’t want us to be here and doesn’t want us to adapt either. More importantly she doesn’t want us to try to force her to adapt to our needs, which I’m finding in some rare cases as well.


There you go, mistaking wealthy comforts of western civilization with survival ability again.

You missed again here.


Unfortunately It’s not like we have any other choice at this point. We are stuck here as castaway’s. Aside from water and air, there is actually nothing on this planet that is damming enough to say we fit here but we can’t even drink the water without processing it.


Well, not when you make a habit of dumping your own sewage into your water supply.

Think about this, really think. Why is it even a problem?


We don’t look or act like anything else on this planet.


Nor do walruses, aardwolves, ginkgo trees, emus, polyp corals, truffles, amoebas, shortleaf pine trees, solenodons, kangaroos, orangutans, strangler figs, lichens, giant tube worms, or staph bacteria. What's your point?

I haven't tried being any of them, but I think I know what your saying.



We are not part of any food chain, or at least nothing here is going to die from the lack of eating humans. Not to say that is how it should be.


Well, no, that just means there was never any species specially adapted to eating humans. There was no koala equal for the human's eucalyptus tree. There's a good reason for that, of course; a carnivore who specializes in eating only one other kind of animal is probably going to go hungry most of the time.

However, our lack of presence in the foodchain is primarily due to our ability to use weapons. Other animals DO happily eat us when presented with the chance. Big cats and large reptiles seem to be the champions of eating people. Hyenas also manage fairly regularly - in fact hyenas were apparently a major predator of humans in Eurasia, back in the Pleistocene. We have lots of fossilized hyena poop full of human hair and teeth. Sharks, bears, wild dogs, and occasionally a hippo will manage, too.Apparently leopard seals and orcas keep trying to eat us when we visit the antarctic as well (maybe we look like penguins to them?) Of course this is ignoring the large number of creatures that parasitize us; those human-specific lice, for instance. Mosquitoes don't seem to mind us all that much, either.

Would you say they have suffered from the lack of eating human?


It’s a scary thought for sure. Evo peeps might say we traded dropping out of the food chain for all of the aforementioned. I just don’t buy it.


No we don't. We're still in the food chain. We're just well-equipped to fend off predation. Go wandering around Cambodia without a gun, see if a tiger doesn't decide to make a brunch of you. Surely the mosquitos will be happy to meet you.


Either way, we would all like to believe our species is above everything else on earth in every way, and there might be an unrealized reason for that.


Overweening ego combined with a startling amount of ignorance about reality. This post is exhibit A.


Here are some more examples of adaptation and the repercussions that don’t add up to evolution:


How you connected any of those at all to evolution baffles me, to be honest. I suppose I shouldn't be puzzled; we've already secured that you haven't got the faintest damned idea what you're talking about.

It's hard to see, its a big picture, not that I'm smarter than you.

In fact you remind me of something...

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.



Even today, we are slaves in a sense. Not because of our needed adaptation, but because we have to work for crap wages to survive. In part this stems from the vast needs for us to survive here. Some of this stems from one person wanting to own another. The unrealized part is that it’s actually a lot of work and resources to make earth our home. It’s not fair that rich people own poor people to gain even more wealth. It’s even more unfair when we have so many natural things working against us, in terms of survival needs. Some might argue and say that observing other life here on earth, they also see a lot of survival. The difference is they are in their natural habitat, we aren’t, so it’s way more difficult for us. Did you ever wonder who taught us slavery? God did.


Once again, prove god.


We are empty minds when we are born.


Evidently some portions of the populace never actually overcome that.


Almost everything we know we either learned for ourselves or someone taught us. Where did we first learn slavery? We are so above it, well at least now we are.


Nah, slavery is still alive and well all around the world. Amero-centrism, "the civil war ended slavery" - hell, even in this country, slavery didn't actually end until the late 1960's (and some would argue that it just moved to a different demographic)

Where it came from is pretty simple. We see it in animal societies as well; "I'm bigger than you, so you need to give me your food or I'll kick your ass and take it anyway." Hell, that's the formula we used when domesticating animals. Applying it to other people seems a pretty logical outgrowth of that.


God certainly wasn’t. I have a feeling that the way he set us back, in combination with mind control allowed him to prevail against our common sense. We now know slavery is just wrong. Dropping atomic bombs on city’s is wrong. Mass killing and destruction is wrong. Punishing people for making choice decisions (which he allegedly created us to do) is wrong. Abducting, transplanting, controlling, enslaving, erasing our memory, disabling some of our higher powers is wrong.


Actually they're only wrong when someone else is doing it, apparently. When "we" do it (whoever "we" is) then it's always "regrettable but necessary." Don't need an invisible magical alien to explain hypocrisy and selfishness, you know.


The result of us living on a planet not made for us is nothing short of cruelty.


By your criteria, nothing living on this planet "belongs here." See, I'm sure your parents told you thins, and apparently it's only just now starting to sink in, but... life is hard. You can't imagine living without an air conditioner? Just imagine the life of a reptile; you're solar-powered. or hey, try being a hyena, and giving birth through your clitoris. Think that's harsh for reproduction? imagine being a fig. Not only do you need another fig nearby, but you also need millions of tiny, tiny wasps of a species that ONLY works for whatever kind of fig you are, to pollinate your flowers... which are then eaten by absolutely everything.

Life's tough. You have it pretty good compared to the poor mother hyena, squeezing her fanged, clawed demon offspring the size of a large pot roast through a birth canal that has a hard right turn and terminates in an opening the diameter of your thumb. In the dirt. With fleas.
edit on 24/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)


Well when she has to visit the hospital for her new born to make it past 3 months, well talk.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I just noticed that, in this post, you’re referring to me and my replies in your earlier thread and then misrepresenting what I said. Let’s clear a few things up…


One blogger has even told me there is no way to tell when DNA has been tampered with, but turns around and says these changes have been witnessed in the wild. WTF!

I’m not a blogger. What I said was that every mechanism of DNA alteration that you cited as examples of things that can only be done in a lab have been observed occurring in nature. There is no way to distinguish between when it’s done in a lab and when it occurs naturally, especially given that you’re only evidence that there is a way of distinguishing between the two is a fictitious “blue laminate”. You went on to state the color of the DNA backbone changed, even though you can’t explain why it would. When confronted with the lack of any evidence or sources for information on your fictitious “blue laminate”, you retreated to saying that it information must have been deleted from the internet or that your internet provider was censoring the information.

Well I never said it was you, and in fact don't remember specifically, maybe I can go back and check. Anyhow, I never said that info dissapeared off the internet, you did.


Someone replied to me on here indicating that on a rare occasion, methylation occurs naturally in the wild. Another words, a rare virus and rare circumstance has altered specific gene segments, and is somehow able to to recreate the complex steps necessary to alter DNA.

I didn’t “indicate”, I gave you peer-reviewed research that showed, objectively, that methylation occurs in nature. It’s not even remotely rare, as it is observed in every biological kingdom on this planet. You simply dismissed the peer-reviewed research as “fake” without ever reading it.


Evolutionists can call the bible a fairy tale, they can call Pye a fraud, call Von Daniken a fraud, call Sitchen a fraud, assume there is no other life in the cosmos, call my 3 decades of study of the paranormal a waste of time, and assume the DNA findings are inconclusive or not proof.

My calling the Bible a book of fairy tales and calling Pye, von Däniken, and Sitchin frauds have nothing to do with my being a proponent of the theory of evolution. It’s because there’s zero objective evidence that the Bible described factual events and the claims of Pye, von Däniken, and Sitchin have been repeatedly refuted and debunked.


I have gotten a lot of feedback about little to no information anyone can find about the laminate or its color, and Lloyd Pye’s video is not accepted by most evolutionists.

Not “anyone”, it’s information that you can’t even find. When pressed to provide a source, you retreated to saying that it information must have been deleted from the internet or that your internet provider was censoring the information. There’s no such thing as DNA “laminate”.


I already covered this with you, that it was just a laimens term. Most people don't understand the technical words.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
God didn't give man opposable thumbs for the use of all tools....


just one


We've got to be careful not to expect that evolution has a direction or bias in the way it operates. It isn't trying to take us any place.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

God didn't give man opposable thumbs for the use of all tools....


just one


We've got to be careful not to expect that evolution has a direction or bias in the way it operates. It isn't trying to take us any place.


OMG



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well I never said it was you, and in fact don't remember specifically, maybe I can go back and check. Anyhow, I never said that info dissapeared off the internet, you did.

It doesn't matter if you said it was me, you're misrepresenting things I said in the course of our conversation in your last thread. And in this post you state:


Yep like I said, it was googled weeks ago, and I went over it in great length but now I can't find it.


The seminar I was in, was someone disscussing how how this preacher needed a gimic to impress people since he was so interested in other life out in the cosmos. He got to meet and spend some time with a real genetisist that told him he needs to use the word laminate. Was directed to google research it, and I did too, but for some reason I'm not finding what I found weeks ago.
(Emphasis mine.)

I know for a fact I googled it weeks ago and there was a plethora of things about it, including the microscope image of it. I am however no longer on my computer or my internet service so perhaps thats why.

Like I said, it's pretty clear that you're claiming the information disappeared off the internet.


I already covered this with you, that it was just a laimens term. Most people don't understand the technical words.

Yourself included, apparently. Actually, you don't seem to understand what's meant by the laymen's terms either.

I like how you just didn't respond to any of the other instances that I pointed out where you lied about or misrepresented what I said in your other thread. It leads one to wonder what else you've been dishonest about.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well I never said it was you, and in fact don't remember specifically, maybe I can go back and check. Anyhow, I never said that info dissapeared off the internet, you did.

It doesn't matter if you said it was me, you're misrepresenting things I said in the course of our conversation in your last thread. And in this post you state:


Yep like I said, it was googled weeks ago, and I went over it in great length but now I can't find it.


The seminar I was in, was someone disscussing how how this preacher needed a gimic to impress people since he was so interested in other life out in the cosmos. He got to meet and spend some time with a real genetisist that told him he needs to use the word laminate. Was directed to google research it, and I did too, but for some reason I'm not finding what I found weeks ago.
(Emphasis mine.)

I know for a fact I googled it weeks ago and there was a plethora of things about it, including the microscope image of it. I am however no longer on my computer or my internet service so perhaps thats why.

Like I said, it's pretty clear that you're claiming the information disappeared off the internet.

Your pretty good at jumping to conclusions Zero. did it ever occur to you that just maybe I'm spelling it wrong? I never said anything about it disappearing, that was an assumption made on your part.


I already covered this with you, that it was just a laimens term. Most people don't understand the technical words.

Yourself included, apparently. Actually, you don't seem to understand what's meant by the laymen's terms either.

I like how you just didn't respond to any of the other instances that I pointed out where you lied about or misrepresented what I said in your other thread. It leads one to wonder what else you've been dishonest about.


Well if you take anything I relay from Sitchen, Von daniken, Pye or the bible, you already stated they are frauds so whats the difference.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Here is a quote from a religious site... whispersofthespirit.com...

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you’” (Genesis 3:6-9)? Some have wondered why God, if He were truly omniscient, that is, all knowing, would ask Adam where he was. Did He not know? Of course He did. God did not ask the question to gain information for Himself, but to raise Adam’s level of consciousness. That is, did Adam know where he was?

The world must have looked much different to him after he had eaten of the Forbidden Fruit. What was once full of beauty and innocence and light now contained ugliness and sin and darkness. Having their eyes opened to know good and evil did not bring freedom. Instead Adam and Eve found themselves to be lost, trapped in a world they did not recognize. No wonder the Lord asked them, “Where are you?”

It is a terrifying thing to be lost, surrounded by strangers, not knowing your way home. You do not know who to trust or to whom to turn to for help. It is even worse if you are lost because you ran away from home. As much as you may want to return home, the thought of facing your parents can be frightening. Will they still love you? Will they want you back? Will they discipline you and if so, how? It was this fear that Adam and Eve experienced when God came walking in the Garden after they had sinned; it was this fear that caused them to hide from the Lord.
......................................................................................................................................................

They were abducted, and it's like obvious here.

......................................................................................................................................................

So I guess I can just dismiss all of the clues that are pointing me in the same direction.
Which by the way beats the hell out of the evolution theory. We have nothing pointing us toward evolution that proves we are from primates. Don’t you think there might be a book of sorts, of history that would have told us that our ancestors were cromagnon man? A book a lot like a diary, or one that shares clues about the early past of our existence? A book like the bible! There is no book because it never happened that way, we do however have the bible.

So I keep getting challenged with agreeing with Pye’s findings on DNA. And it seems to be the only thing I’m challenged on because it explains evolution as NOT being how we got here. Thats it.

Isn’t it odd how it agrees with my findings in the bible?

Isn’t it odd how vestigial organs agree with what appears to be disabled powers we could have?

Isn’t it odd how some of Pye’s findings in the DNA also reflect that as well, in altered sections?

Isn’t it odd how God made us in his image which could have been misunderstood as him altering our DNA?

Isn’t it odd how Jesus was for redemption, which could have meant the option of us getting our powers back?

Isn’t it odd how we also have a plethora of dormant, junk, DNA that scientists have been unable to decoded, and it looks like nothing they have never seen before? Perhaps our powers?

Isn't it odd how there seems to be a commonality profile with aliens always having telepathy and other powers, while we don't?

Isn’t it odd how Sitchen has a reason why someone would have abducted us as slaves, to mine gold, which also explains why god wanted us to serve him?

Isn’t it a coincendence, aliens happen to abduct people, and thats what appears to be the case with Adam and Eve, how they are were just brought here?

Isn’t it odd how in my 3 decades of study of the paranormal, other life seems to always have some interesting powers, but almost always has telepathy, and the bible seems to also be rampant with that, but it seems to have been missed?

Isn’t it odd how when I quizzed a holy roller on how they would explain hearing voices in their head they actually told me it could be a spirit or a ghost? Commonly used words in the bible.

Isn’t it odd that the bible also makes what appears to be reference to us having our powers removed as well? (Isiah 6)

Isn’t it odd how Von daniken also agrees with god being a cosmonaut and shows proof of the possibility through nazda lines, pyramids, and other associated physical findings that are still here on earth? But hes a fraud by evolutionists, yet they just can’t seem to explain any of these things.

Isn’t it odd how in the Ezekiel chapter God visits us in a space ship, with what appears to be a four headed mutated creature of lion, ox, eagle, and man? Like he works with DNA.

Isn’t it odd how the bible also seems to be filled with things referring to advanced technology which some of we actually have today? But is usually accepted by religious folks as magic and miracles, or the power of God.

Isn’t it odd how our mtDNA shows we are older than we thought based on the bible? Which also explains us being abducted.

Isn’t it also odd how that same mtDNA shows a bottleneck in our evolution at that same time?

Isn’t it odd how God never showed his face?

Isn’t it odd how he asked Adam right after eating from the tree of knowledge, where he was? It appears he was asking him, because he was testing his memory after being abducted.

Isn’t it odd how we are always taught to believe that God is see all, and know it all and omnipotent, but had Moses build the Ark of the covenant to communicate with him?

Isn’t it odd how that same Ark explains details about the limitations of telepathy?

It’s also odd how those referred to using telepathy have names like holy ghost, god, spirit and everyone else has regular names?

But it’s not odd that evolutionists are able to theorize on how we might have evolved but are unable to produce any evidence that connects us to this?

Isn’t it equally odd how some people still believe in it?
I may not have hard core proof either as these things happened some time ago, but I do have all of the aforementioned to support it. Some of which is through published books which some people only care about. How can some people be such a hypocrite to tell me they only want to believe in things out of a book and turn around and dismiss the bible?

As far as I knew, it’s also a book. If you have a limitation of selection, I can only sum that up as selective reasoning. We have never had any reason to believe the bible was a fairy tale or that it was meant for kids only, thats what Santa Clause is for. So it’s not fair to use that comparison. If your not intelligent enough to understand the difference, than your not a worthy challenge in this subject. Besides the bible never indicates that it is in fact a fairy tale, like most fairy tales would.

There is nothing wrong with theory’s, and I actually believe and trust them. The problem is continuity. My findings have 100% redundant continuity and evolution doesn’t. The reason is simple, it didn’t happen that way. When people on here tell me they simply don’t believe in other life in the cosmos, it instantly tells me how close minded they are, and it’s funny how they can’t prove or disprove it. I do tend to have an open mind, but when it comes to theory’s, I have to have continuity.

I also don’t believe in this simply because of the idea of having to have something to believe in. I went through 3 decades of my life with no faith, so it’s not like that. I wan’t to believe in truth, and continuity. It’s to bad this one forced me into the highly speculative conspiracy section. As far as I’m concerned, current practice of religions should be the highly speculative and what I’m realizing should be the norm. At the same time I don’t want to give the impression of a new religion, just that it’s needed corrections. This is a highly sensitive subject, and anytime you deal with other life that visits us, you not only need to have the long term experience I do in study, but be very careful to spot common things they are well known for doing.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You're spouting grade A nonsense. Want proof of evolution? Take a 5th grade science class. Why isnt there a book? Because nature doesnt write books,and humans had not yet developed writing yet. I honestly hope you're just trolling



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You're spouting grade A nonsense. Want proof of evolution? Take a 5th grade science class. Why isnt there a book? Because nature doesnt write books,and humans had not yet developed writing yet. I honestly hope you're just trolling


If we can have a bible thousands of years old, there is no excuse why we have no bible backing up evolution.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Although you may have some valid points in there, you are wrong and so off base on so many levels. This was before I even realized I was only halfway through the post.

Basically you are citing issues with modern civilization, and saying because there are problems because somebody dropped us off here and altered us. My response is that modern civilization is not natural from a physiological viewpoint. You cited shoes, I claim our feet are healthier without them. You cited diet, we process large amounts of food in response to the population explosion 100 years ago, just so we can feed that exponential growth. I could go on and on 'fixing' your backwards 'proof', but I think I will just leave it at that.

I do appreciate all of the time and effort you spent creating this thread, I guess its just not my cup of tea.

Regards,
II



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


a "bible" wont prove anything. Only tests and continuous questioning of something can confirm it. But if you really wanted a book to back it up, once again, 5th grade science book should do.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
Although you may have some valid points in there, you are wrong and so off base on so many levels. This was before I even realized I was only halfway through the post.

Basically you are citing issues with modern civilization, and saying because there are problems because somebody dropped us off here and altered us. My response is that modern civilization is not natural from a physiological viewpoint. You cited shoes, I claim our feet are healthier without them. You cited diet, we process large amounts of food in response to the population explosion 100 years ago, just so we can feed that exponential growth. I could go on and on 'fixing' your backwards 'proof', but I think I will just leave it at that.

I do appreciate all of the time and effort you spent creating this thread, I guess its just not my cup of tea.

Regards,
II


It is pretty complex to grasp, not that I'm saying I'm more intelligent, however you are indicating that we are the ONLY thing that has made changes on this planet by what your stating. Again it's very complex, and not so much that life is hard so we have proof, and thats it. It's more like that is simply a small clue. You say this isn't your cup of tea. I understand what you mean. I think everyone will at some point in there life wonder where they came from and how they got here, regardless if you think god made you or didn't and simply dumped you here.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


a "bible" wont prove anything. Only tests and continuous questioning of something can confirm it. But if you really wanted a book to back it up, once again, 5th grade science book should do.


I agree which is why I have multiple things pointing out the same thing, including the bible.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Ok the name in the bible for the walki talkies or cell phones was either urim, or thurim or ephod.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I'd like to formerly invite you to the "prove evo wrong" thread.

Now on page 440+ and only still going to destroy the ignorance of tooth.

Wish I could quote this post over htere, would give some of the regulars a good old chuckle.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join