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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 103
31
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Okay, I've decided to take a few minutes to look through some medical journals so I can once and for all prove you wrong on this point. First off, here is an article from the California Dental Association by Dr. Barbara Steinberg. In it she explains why pregnancy will not cause a decrease in the calcium found in teeth. She then goes on to discuss pregnancy gingivitis.
yes we allready establishes you cant pull calcium out of teeth.




These next links deal specifically with pregnancy gingivitis and hormone levels. Each one concludes that the increase in gingivitis during pregnancy is due to such hormones as oestrogen and progesterone, which are naturally produced during pregnancy, being the culprit. A few even go on to say that the hormones aren't even affecting the teeth or gums, they are simply providing a better environment for plaque to grow. If you want more articles you can do a simple search on Google Scholar. There seems to be a large amount of research done on pregnancy gingivitis and hormones.
Well then you seriously need to let these manufactures know that they have it all wrong and you have it right.




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well then you seriously need to let these manufactures know that they have it all wrong and you have it right.


It's called marketing. Manufacturers lie ALL the time. All it has to say in the corner is *This claim not substantiated by the FDA, and sometimes even then, the FDA will approve something only because they got an underhanded deal to endorse it.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Laugh about it all you want but you just aren't able to come up with a sufficiant reason as to why we are the only ones on this earth that wears shoes.


I love how you're arguing with a random stranger from some unspecified location on planet Earth using sophisticated orthographic symbols that represent abstract concepts, and inputting these into a machine that converts them into electronic impulses and transmits them through a global network of wires...

..and you're wondering why we're the only ones who enjoy comfortable footwear. Put it this way: if they were intelligent enough to build them, every rabbit, chicken and hedgehog the world over would carry a high-powered automatic rifle.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm telling you, prenatals are primarily for the baby, not the mother. They help prepare the body for pregnancy and provide the fetus with the healthiest possible environment. For example, the reason prenatals contain pholic acid is because it reduces the risk of such complications as spina bifida by 70%. I will say that the calcium in prenatals is for the mother, but this is because the child can take calcium from the mother's bones to form its own bones. However, everything else in prenatals is more for the child than the mother.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



Well its for both of them, I mean the mother is carrying the child right? You can't seperate what goes to each becaue its all about what the mother takes in. The baby doesn't get to pick and choose what he eats, thats decided by the mother.
edit on 7-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatMellowBastard
 





I love how you're arguing with a random stranger from some unspecified location on planet Earth using sophisticated orthographic symbols that represent abstract concepts, and inputting these into a machine that converts them into electronic impulses and transmits them through a global network of wires...

..and you're wondering why we're the only ones who enjoy comfortable footwear. Put it this way: if they were intelligent enough to build them, every rabbit, chicken and hedgehog the world over would carry a high-powered automatic rifle.


Only when mother is no longer the necessity of invention.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Here is a quote from a website talking about prenatel vitamins.

Most women can benefit from taking a prenatal vitamin and mineral supplement, preferably before they start trying to conceive. Think of it as an insurance policy to make sure you're getting the right amount of certain crucial nutrients during pregnancy

www.babycenter.com...

Now see they are referring to the mother, unless the baby is always a women.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



Well its for both of them, I mean the mother is carrying the child right? You can't seperate what goes to each becaue its all about what the mother takes in. The baby doesn't get to pick and choose what he eats, thats decided by the mother.
edit on 7-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


You really need to stop posting stuff you don't actually have any understanding of. Do real research first, then come back to us.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I have done better, its all a personal life experience. Trust me, the baby will get his calcium, its the mother that will suffer for it.
edit on 7-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


I have done better, its all a personal life experience.


It was personal life experience for these guys too:

www.womenintheancientworld.com...

Do you think they were right about rubbing oils on the belly and calling on the gods for a safe birth?

And the Greeks:

www.womenintheancientworld.com...

Seriously, personal experience means nothing to the eyes of science, which will explain things in a way that's testable and consistent. Personal experience is just a story.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





It was personal life experience for these guys too:

www.womenintheancientworld.com...

Do you think they were right about rubbing oils on the belly and calling on the gods for a safe birth?

And the Greeks:

www.womenintheancientworld.com...
Well at least they didn't set out trying to prove an unprovable theory of evolution.




Seriously, personal experience means nothing to the eyes of science, which will explain things in a way that's testable and consistent. Personal experience is just a story.
Who ever said personal experiences arent testable? They are 100% testable, over and over and with many people. Keep telling yourself. This is why evolution is still just a theory and not a completly observed one.

edit on 7-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Who ever said personal experiences arent testable? They are 100% testable, over and over and with many people. Keep telling yourself. This is why evolution is still just a theory and not a completly observed one.

edit on 7-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Well then, cite your source which shows that what you're saying is accurate. We can talk then.

By the way, in the sciences, a theory is as good as it gets. Even gravity is just a theory. All our tests say it's true, so we keep it as a theory. Evolution has yet to be proven wrong, so it maintains its status as a theory.

You have a hypothesis which is untestable regarding the human genesis, and it seems to ride on your personal misunderstanding of evolution coupled with your personal beliefs.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We have 12 known defects in our genes that wont allow someone to live past puberty without proper medical attention. Ie, shots, boosters, and imunization.

12? Another rectally-derived number, unless you have a source for it.


Ok I didn't count each page but it is well over 1/4 total.

Like I said, rectally-derived.

You have zero objective evidence to support a single one of your claims regarding interventionism.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


As I said, the calcium is primarily for the mother's benefit. It makes it so the baby doesn't start leeching calcium from the mother's bones. Everything else in prenatals is for the baby. As I mentioned before the folic acids are for the prevention of certain complications. The mother doesn't need those folic acids, as even if she stopped anything at all the mother would still have several months of it in reserve. In fact the reason many doctors will prescribe prenatals before pregnancy is for the folic acids as the time when it is most needed is in the first few weeks when the mother may not even know she is pregnant.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





By the way, in the sciences, a theory is as good as it gets. Even gravity is just a theory. All our tests say it's true, so we keep it as a theory. Evolution has yet to be proven wrong, so it maintains its status as a theory.
Ya but at least gravity is observed!




You have a hypothesis which is untestable regarding the human genesis, and it seems to ride on your personal misunderstanding of evolution coupled with your personal beliefs.
Actually I never made any claims about how or what made us, just that we aren't from earth. Could be creation, could be evolution, could be something else we don't know yet. I go with the 3rd since both creation and evolution always put us back to which came first the chicken or the egg.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





12? Another rectally-derived number, unless you have a source for it.
sure. www.youtube.com...




Like I said, rectally-derived.

You have zero objective evidence to support a single one of your claims regarding interventionism.
Oh come on, I have a plethora of evidence. Lloyd Pye that doesn't even believe in god knows we were placed here, Erich von daniken, Sitchen and the bible. Oh wait you don't accept any of them as truthfull. Do you have some evidence that dissproves all of them?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





As I said, the calcium is primarily for the mother's benefit. It makes it so the baby doesn't start leeching calcium from the mother's bones. Everything else in prenatals is for the baby. As I mentioned before the folic acids are for the prevention of certain complications. The mother doesn't need those folic acids, as even if she stopped anything at all the mother would still have several months of it in reserve. In fact the reason many doctors will prescribe prenatals before pregnancy is for the folic acids as the time when it is most needed is in the first few weeks when the mother may not even know she is pregnant.


Ok now your contradicting what you said earlier, which is cool cause now your agreeing with me. FYI did you not get the link I posted? On the last part you are correct, and there is actually more folic acid then calcium but I was always taught the calcium was the important part, websites are saying the folic acid is the key.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It's hard to disprove Pye for the same reason it's hard to believe his claims. He offers no evidence back them up. He can claim whatever he wants about genetic testing, but as of yet he has not provided copies of the actual results nor have any laboratories corroborated his claims.

As for Sitchin and von Daniken, they are easily disproved. Sitchin can be proven in one fell stroke. His claims regarding a 12th planet hinge entirely on Cylinder Seal VA 243. He claims this shows twelve planets orbiting the Sun, however it shows nothing of the sort. We know what the Sumerian iconography is for the planets. None of these symbols appear on the cylinder seal. Instead, we have one repeating symbol that matches up exactly with the Sumerian symbol for star. So, what Sitchin claims is a depiction of our solar system is actually a night sky full of stars.

As for von Daniken, well that's just too easy. I will start off by reminding everyone that he was convicted of fraud in the past. While this was not in relation to his later work it does give us an idea of the man. It is also worth noting that he has knowingly presented fraudulent data in his books. For example in one book he presents photos of pottery from "Biblical times" that portray UFOs. In 78 Nova investigated this claim and found the potter that had made them. I can keep going in regards to von Daniken, but most of it has been said elsewhere. So I will leave you Robert Sheaffer's thoughts on the subject.

Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods?":
Science or Charlatanism?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 







It's hard to disprove Pye for the same reason it's hard to believe his claims. He offers no evidence back them up. He can claim whatever he wants about genetic testing, but as of yet he has not provided copies of the actual results nor have any laboratories corroborated his claims.
Your one of several that have said this and I partially agree. He has to some degree gone public otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Pye has worked closely with several labs to try to figure out what this skull is. As a result he has been exposed to some of the work and has been taugh some things. Including how it is that star child can have human mtDNA and alien mother and father nuclear DNA. It's as though there is no public for this type of subject. It's like me figureing out one day how to cram my whole fist down my own throat, there really isn't a market for that. I think he knows that most people are not so willing to accept an alien at this point even though I see a different spotting everyday on yahoo. Heres one for today.....

news.yahoo.com...

Yesterday it was a new found planet kevlar 22b.
They are pretty sure it can sustain life and the planet holds a nice 72 degrees. There appears to be water as well.




As for Sitchin and von Daniken, they are easily disproved. Sitchin can be proven in one fell stroke. His claims regarding a 12th planet hinge entirely on Cylinder Seal VA 243. He claims this shows twelve planets orbiting the Sun, however it shows nothing of the sort. We know what the Sumerian iconography is for the planets. None of these symbols appear on the cylinder seal. Instead, we have one repeating symbol that matches up exactly with the Sumerian symbol for star. So, what Sitchin claims is a depiction of our solar system is actually a night sky full of stars.
Well I have never heard of these details and who is backing this up? Another author? Nasa?




As for von Daniken, well that's just too easy. I will start off by reminding everyone that he was convicted of fraud in the past. While this was not in relation to his later work it does give us an idea of the man. It is also worth noting that he has knowingly presented fraudulent data in his books. For example in one book he presents photos of pottery from "Biblical times" that portray UFOs. In 78 Nova investigated this claim and found the potter that had made them. I can keep going in regards to von Daniken, but most of it has been said elsewhere. So I will leave you Robert Sheaffer's thoughts on the subject.
Well why are you picking him apart on non related things? Granted its not to cool he has been busted. I got a speeding ticket once does that mean I jump to conclusions? You need to remember something, I know you said it wasn't work related but even if it was, it doesn't prove all of his work to be wrong.

I could say the same thing about Pye and the bible. Just because we don't understand it does not mean its wrong. Pye has his reasons why he hasn't put a book out on this yet, but I did watch the second video and I'm pretty content with its findings. He is very upfront about why testing continued on the skull and appears to be on the level about everything. He just knew the skull was alien and didn't want to accept we aren't sure for an answer. I have to agree with his decisions, I wouldn't want to either. Always remember even if someone did get busted (which isn't even the case here) for something doesnt dissprove everything else they do.
edit on 7-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


sure. www.youtube.com...

First, Pye said two dozen. Looks like you need to work on your listening comprehension skills.

Second, what is Pye's source for those claims? He's amazingly evasive about it when asked directly.

Third, he's talking about potential defects, like the genetic defect that causes cystic fibrosis. Not everyone carries the gene and it's autosomal recessive, so it requires a person to have one of those genes from each parent.

Fourth, counter to Pye's claim, we're not the only species that has genetic disorders like that. In fact, we share some with other primates. Which would be evidence for common ancestry.


Oh come on, I have a plethora of evidence.

No, you have what you perceive as a lack of evidence for evolution. It boils down to an argument from ignorance -- we don't know everything yet, therefore aliens did it. You have zero objective evidence to support your claims of interventionism. I'm not sure why you're doing such an about-face on this, as you've admitted that there's zero evidence in other threads.


Lloyd Pye that doesn't even believe in god knows we were placed here, Erich von daniken, Sitchen and the bible. Oh wait you don't accept any of them as truthfull. Do you have some evidence that dissproves all of them?

Yes, and it's already been presented multiple times to you, in this thread and others.




top topics



 
31
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join