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: 106
31
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Why do you keep using the Bible as evidence when it is a BOOK. It's a long book, written by more than one person and compiled later on, but it's still just words on pages that hold no value if the claims cannot be validated.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Why do you keep using the Bible as evidence when it is a BOOK. It's a long book, written by more than one person and compiled later on, but it's still just words on pages that hold no value if the claims cannot be validated.
Well I never said I agreed with faith but do you have something that says the bible is a fake? I know you back your views on evolution from many books. Whats wrong with books?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





Why do you keep using the Bible as evidence when it is a BOOK. It's a long book, written by more than one person and compiled later on, but it's still just words on pages that hold no value if the claims cannot be validated.
Well I never said I agreed with faith but do you have something that says the bible is a fake? I know you back your views on evolution from many books. Whats wrong with books?


The Bible is a book with no basis in verifiable fact. You can fact-check Dawkins' books. They rely on his research and he cites his references as he goes. You can trace things back to the original analysis done when the fossils were found, and how they got connected to others.

The Bible stands alone, with no verification, and tons of parts that are considered to be metaphors because they are so mythological that there is no reason or logic in it. The Bible is just a story-book to me. You taking it more seriously than scientific discourse is concerning.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





The Bible is a book with no basis in verifiable fact. You can fact-check Dawkins' books. They rely on his research and he cites his references as he goes. You can trace things back to the original analysis done when the fossils were found, and how they got connected to others.
Any connection ever found can once again just as easily be explained as a creator using recycled parts.

IMO, I know this is going to sound weird but I'm thinking its neither one. I mean not creation that made us, even though at some point we have to of been made, nor evolution. There is something odd out there that we don't understand yet. Not that we couldn't understand just that we don't even have a clue at this point.

Assume with me for the moment that we were in fact created by another creature of sorts. Lets also assume that he also made all the other life everywhere. One thing is clear, he likes life, there is just no two ways about it. For someone to go through the trouble to make all this is beyond understanding. It would seem there has to be a purpose. I don't just mean like our purpose in life, I mean like an overall life purpose for all things together.Of course where the whole idea gets squashed is who made the creator. It doesn't even matter if it's actually Trevor the giant celestial squid that poops out planets that automatically has life on them. Who made Trevor?

You get the same thing with evolution. If we all came from slime, and I'm willing to imagine this for the moment, who made the slime? Honestly its like a zillion tornadoes tearing though a zillion junk yards and assembling a zillion jet planes. It's just not going to happen.

There is a much simpler way this is all happening and we just aren't there yet. There is something, weird out there.




The Bible stands alone, with no verification, and tons of parts that are considered to be metaphors because they are so mythological that there is no reason or logic in it. The Bible is just a story-book to me. You taking it more seriously than scientific discourse is concerning.

Of course it stands alone, its one of the oldest documents we have. Of course parts look like metaphors, your reading without the understanding that it is supernatural. When I read all the so called metaphors, they make total sense to me. And I don't mean I feel jesus in my heart, or god is omnipotent. Of course there is no logic in it when you read it from the non supernatural perspective. Well this story book is very real and very important, and you would be wise to give it some understanding (not what religion teaches however) because in a lot of ways it relates directly to YOU. Again the only reason you can't take it serious, is because you cant seriously understand it. And I'm not blaming you. If you think you need to feel jesus in your heart or pray to god for the wonderful food has provided you, or thank him for being here, you have it all backwards, and again I can't blame you. God was NOT a good person people. Reading the bible with an unbiased view will teach you this. He was a mad scientist that played with DNA and used that power to punish and control us. He has a dilema controlling us and his plans went astray because you can't controll an entire planet with mind powers.

So the message was to obey, and serve god or go to hell. I guess you could say we are here, and we did it to ourselves. If you obey and serve, then you get to go back home and you get released from all the sickness and pain we all suffer from. You also get your powers back. Some people got to go back, we didn't, and that bus is no longer available. We are castaways, and we are screwed. It's sad, very sad. He was an @$$hole in my opinion.

There is the possibility he actually manufactured us from existing DNA of other life, which might explain why our mtDNA says we are over 200,000 years old. .......



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It's could be as an example, if our scientists were to cross a bananna with an orange. And lets say the bananna is over 200,000 years old. Lets say they just did this 50 years ago. Looking at the DNA might reveal this fruit to be over 200,000 years old. There seems to be a plethora of proof that we were in fact an engeenered species, and honestly it makes me sick. Simply because that means we don't have a real home. However the bible says we do have a home, which leads me to believe we were abducted, thats what aliens do, they abduct people. Either way you can see the screwed up mess we are in.

As far as how we were suppose to be, I think I have a clue.

God had a problem controlling us, and was failing at this, to the point he started killing some of us off, and damaging the hell out of our DNA. It still didn't work, and how could it, we didn't have a clue what he was doing to us. The people back then were simple minded. They wouldn't know what an atomic bomb is like the one he dropped on them in sodom and gahmora. You can see we were screwed. Anyhow he got this bright idea to tease us back into servituide. This was the purpose of Jesus. The virgin mary was in fact a virgin. We can make someone preggo today even if they are a virgin, its called artifical insemonation. All he did was go to our home planet, abduct a normal healthy human and take some sperm from him and squirt it up in mary. This is why Jesus was so specieal and powerfull. He was whole, he had all the smarts and abilitys that we are SUPPOSE to have. Of course when he disappered God made good and sure not to leave any of his DNA down here so we would never fix this problem.

God would punish us when we tried to leave earth, because he didn't want us escaping, we are prisoners here, and he won, we are still stuck here.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Still, at the very best, you have speculation. It is a hypothesis that cannot be counted as a hypothesis because it is an idea that cannot be tested. Evolution can and is being tested, and has been found to be valid 100% of the time so far. Once it is proven to not be valid that 1 time, then a new theory will be created to explain why it happens differently sometimes. So far, it has not.

Sure, you can claim we may have been engineered, but you have no objective proof. That is what I'm getting at. We need actual, documentable proof.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.



It is recommended that reproductively active females receive oral folic acid supplementation at 400 mcg/dayfor the month prior to conception to minimize neural tube defects. This vitamin is routinely provided in most adult human vitamin supplementations. Routine iron supplementation during pregnancy is not needed to prevent anemia in either the dam or fetus but may be provided in known cases of iron-deficiency anemia of the Dam


From www.lpzoosites.org...


You know I feel a little slighted. I show some info to support Itsthetooths take on folic acid and he ignores it.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You are correct, a car is not a bicycle. But they both do have tires, which suggests that they may have a common ancestor.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Still, at the very best, you have speculation. It is a hypothesis that cannot be counted as a hypothesis because it is an idea that cannot be tested. Evolution can and is being tested, and has been found to be valid 100% of the time so far. Once it is proven to not be valid that 1 time, then a new theory will be created to explain why it happens differently sometimes. So far, it has not.
Well these things are documented. I mean I don't know how much more proof you want. I don't think that by laying them to the wastide by choice is what makes them useless.




Sure, you can claim we may have been engineered, but you have no objective proof. That is what I'm getting at. We need actual, documentable proof.
Watch anchient aliens.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Oh I'm not ignoreing you at all. It's just that post by Xcalibur254 was the one that actually found the folic acid to more of a reason over my idea of calcium.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You are correct, a car is not a bicycle. But they both do have tires, which suggests that they may have a common ancestor.
You guys this is clearly a case of me seeing the glass half empty and you seeing it half full.

What it boils down to is the fact that we could be related by design. If a creator used recycled parts to build all life as we know it, this could explain why we are all made up of the same DNA.

Understanding this, you realize more that its not so odd that our DNA is very simular to primates.
Your looking at this like we must be related because the DNA is close, and I'm looking at it like we are all close because we are made up of the same DNA. Neither proves or disproves creation or evolution.

Both are way to complicated which leads me to believe there is something else going on that we just don't have a clue on yet.

Yes bicycles and cars both have tires but those tires are VERY different, and whos to say they werent even made by differnt creators?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

A question. Did you follow the link?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I'm still waiting for your reply with the complete list of all 4000 genetic defects, including the 24 that will kill us before puberty, with references. I'd even settle for a link to the complete list so you don't have to copy and paste it here.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

You get the same thing with evolution. If we all came from slime, and I'm willing to imagine this for the moment, who made the slime? Honestly its like a zillion tornadoes tearing though a zillion junk yards and assembling a zillion jet planes. It's just not going to happen.


Dude, you need to stop using absurd analogies.

1. Evolution DOES NOT SAY we came from slime.

2. Evolution is NOT like a zillion tornadoes going through a zillion junk yards and assembling a "zillion" jet planes. Stop comparing mechanical inventions of humans to genetic mutations. You've repeated this nonsensical argument several times now. It is a terrible analogy. If we knew the mathematical odds of life in the universe, THEN we can speculate about the probabilities and compare it to something like that, but again, it's not evolution you are talking about. It's the origin of the universe or life. If there is some sort of creator / creators, then where did they come from? Where they created? Who created them? It's impossible to guess that kind of stuff.

3. This thread is about providing evidence to PROVE evolution wrong (or to prove any other theory on the diversity of life correct). You need to offer actual evidence instead of speculative old scripture texts and faulty assumptions about tornadoes going through junkyards. Evolution isn't random, it is based on adaptation and survival of the fittest.


Well I never said I agreed with faith but do you have something that says the bible is a fake? I know you back your views on evolution from many books. Whats wrong with books?

Burden of proof is on you to prove it's accurate, not the other way around. You need to show evidence that suggests the supernatural events in the bible were accurate or partially accurate. Do you have anything that proves the story of Mother Goose is fake?


Yes bicycles and cars both have tires but those tires are VERY different, and whos to say they werent even made by differnt creators?


The person who made them. Unfortunately the entity or group of entities that allegedly created life, have failed to comment on the situation OR leave any tangible evidence.

I enjoy Ancient Aliens as well and do subscribe to the idea that aliens or advanced humans did indeed visit / aide ancient cultures, but I understand it's just an interpretation of ancient myth and there isn't really any objective evidence to support it. There is the fact, however that the 1000+ ton blocks were cut with incredible accuracy and precision and hauled miles to one of the oldest known constructed sites in the world. How was this done? I have no idea, but i don't care how many slaves you have, they aren't hauling 1000 tons without decent technology. Perhaps the legend of Atlantis was true and it was actually advanced humans teaching ancient cultures. They were just mistaken as gods because they wore advanced looking outfits, and had technology. Either way this is all just food for thought, it's not proof and has nothing to do with evolution. I enjoy the subject, but this thread is about providing evidence to support an alternative theory to evolution to explain diversity. It's not to speculate and guess about interpretations of the bible and make assumptions. Aliens or no aliens, evolution stands as a fact until somebody can prove it wrong, or prove another theory correct.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Which we know to be true at least here on earth. But keep in mind that Earth is a planet infested with things not intended to be here. Now I'm not saying its proof but a valid possibility.


Nonsensical.




Well just because we breath air doen't mean that everything will be in our favor. Of course there is going to be things working good for us, it's not proof we belong here. All life as we know it breaths air. Keep in mind, as we know it. Thats not to say there isn't life elsewhere that breaths something else.

There is life on Earth that will die if exposed to air and oxygen in particular. They're called anaerobic.




I didn't read it all but the best guess I can see is that they possibly did not include some vital things that would have been part of the eco system. It's big, real big. So big that we are able to somewhat live here on earth, with a lot of help of course.

Microbes are essential to our well-being. That means we adapted and evolved with them.



Get used to it, we are a virus on this planet and will always be rejected.

No, we're not. We're part of the biosphere of this planet. We belong here.



I would be interested in knowing if measles only attacks humans.


No, it doesn't. It attacks all primates.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And what I'm saying is that human's aren't supposed to drink cow's milk. Cattle has only been domesticated since the early Neolithic. Before that we didn't have access to cow's milk and lo and behold we survived. There are also plenty of people today that don't drink milk, whether voluntarily or nonvoluntarily, and they do fine without it. The reason we drink milk is because it an easily replenishable source of vitamins. However, we can get the same vitamins through other means.


That's not the only reason. The water was really dirty and they needed another source of fluids. As recently as the 19th century, people drank milk, wine, and ale because they couldn't drink the water.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm not sure what link your talking about. Give it to me and I'll look at it.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 






I'm still waiting for your reply with the complete list of all 4000 genetic defects, including the 24 that will kill us before puberty, with references. I'd even settle for a link to the complete list so you don't have to copy and paste it here.
I never claimed to have a list, geesh.

Both were from the Pye video.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Dude, you need to stop using absurd analogies.

1. Evolution DOES NOT SAY we came from slime.

Well if everything evolved from something else, the common understanding is that we started out as slim. I know you have heard this before. Your acting like I made it up. And if we didn't evolve from slime (trillions of generations ago) then what exactly did we evolve from? Or do you think that primates were the first species?




2. Evolution is NOT like a zillion tornadoes going through a zillion junk yards and assembling a "zillion" jet planes. Stop comparing mechanical inventions of humans to genetic mutations. You've repeated this nonsensical argument several times now. It is a terrible analogy. If we knew the mathematical odds of life in the universe, THEN we can speculate about the probabilities and compare it to something like that, but again, it's not evolution you are talking about. It's the origin of the universe or life. If there is some sort of creator / creators, then where did they come from? Where they created? Who created them? It's impossible to guess that kind of stuff.
And its the same thing with evolution. Did we start out as monkeys, dogs, cats, slime, WHAT. And even if we did start out as slime, who made the slime?

The analogies I'm presenting, are examples I have read about on evolution orientated sites. IMO they are accurate. Now I don't mean down to the exact number, but in the realm of understanding the general possibilities. IMO they are not exaggerated, they seem to be pretty fitting. Yes they aren't the best because they are man made, but thats just to make sure you have no problem understanding them.




3. This thread is about providing evidence to PROVE evolution wrong (or to prove any other theory on the diversity of life correct). You need to offer actual evidence instead of speculative old scripture texts and faulty assumptions about tornadoes going through junkyards. Evolution isn't random, it is based on adaptation and survival of the fittest.
And I think I have done a pretty good job. Just because you don't accept any of it is not a basis for it not being correct. I don't think old scriptures are speculative. I do know that most people miss the preface where is says its a supernatural read, and well, that just sums it up right there. In case you didn't know, that means aliens. I question evolution not being random.

It's as though you are saying there is some sort of intelligence and intent behind it. Sounds more like a creator to me, anyhow lets go with this for a second. Lets say changes are planned out for what ever reason, and you are assuming of course that we are in fact from earthly ancestors. WHY did we decided to completly seperate ourselves from the rest of everything here on the planet. NEWS FLASH, we don't fit in here. We are not part of any cycle of life here, and nothing here would miss us if we disappeared. In fact the planet is rejecting us.




Burden of proof is on you to prove it's accurate, not the other way around. You need to show evidence that suggests the supernatural events in the bible were accurate or partially accurate. Do you have anything that proves the story of Mother Goose is fake?
I think there are to many things supporting the same direction, and if you just stepped in on this convo, you might have to back read to get caught up. I think I have done a good job explaining why things are the way that they are. Not that it's easy to undersatnd. It is big and complex and you have to know a little about a lot of things.Mother Goose was never intended to be real. It's written by a childrens publishing company, in comprehension level specificaly for kids. It's not hard to grasp. The hint is when they usually start wtih "Once upon a time" its sort of a clue. The bible does not start out this way.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 







The person who made them. Unfortunately the entity or group of entities that allegedly created life, have failed to comment on the situation OR leave any tangible evidence.
Here is where your dead wrong. You see they did leave some proof behind, they left us with our DNA.




enjoy Ancient Aliens as well and do subscribe to the idea that aliens or advanced humans did indeed visit / aide ancient cultures, but I understand it's just an interpretation of ancient myth and there isn't really any objective evidence to support it. There is the fact, however that the 1000+ ton blocks were cut with incredible accuracy and precision and hauled miles to one of the oldest known constructed sites in the world. How was this done?
There is a hell of a lot more than that. Pryamids, nazda lines, hyroglifics, areas destroyed by what appears to be atomic bombs, Paintings in prymids depicting what appears to be mad scientist DNA work. There is tons more. I suggest you watch charriot ot the gods and our jaw will drop at just how much of this there is. There is no question this planet was inhabited before us.

It also raises a good question as to where they went. It appears they were shipped out of here the same way they got here.




I have no idea, but i don't care how many slaves you have, they aren't hauling 1000 tons without decent technology. Perhaps the legend of Atlantis was true and it was actually advanced humans teaching ancient cultures. They were just mistaken as gods because they wore advanced looking outfits, and had technology. Either way this is all just food for thought, it's not proof and has nothing to do with evolution. I enjoy the subject, but this thread is about providing evidence to support an alternative theory to evolution to explain diversity. It's not to speculate and guess about interpretations of the bible and make assumptions. Aliens or no aliens, evolution stands as a fact until somebody can prove it wrong, or prove another theory correct.
Ya there is no guessing here, no speculation, I'm sure its accurate. There is no way all of the points I have been placing on the last dozen pages could all point in the same direction with the direction being wrong.

I'm not sure if anyone can grasp this, but we are of an intelligent design. So when you hear these things about god like species out there, we are part of that picture, with some understanding. If you go back to the start of the bible, when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, God punished them. He took away one of our powers, called telepathy. This was to place great impunity between us. Of course it does. We aren't meant to communicate with our mouths, thats a form of adaptation from having telepathy pulled from us. Your mouth is for chewing food. Not that we can't use it to communicate, obviously we do because we have no other choice. There were other powers removed from us as well, and they too are listed in the bible

You start to see this picture, that we were meant to be so much more than we are now. God like. Just like it was said in the garden of Eden. We wanted to eat from the tree ot knowledge because we wanted to be Gods too. Of course it was all pulled out from under our feet. If you want to see something that supports this idea, here is a list....

There are seven reasons that suggest we have disabled powers.

1. In my over thirty years studying the supernatural and paranormal, I always thought it was odd that reports about other life that visits us, seems to always have special powers, and we don’t. Looking at this from the commonality of life, we appear to be missing some abilities.

2. There are multiple suggestions in the bible that also concur with us having ability’s removed from us, as a form of punishment. One of which is telepathy, and another called perceive. There might be others missing as well.

3. Vestigial organs are present in the human species, and could be part of some or our disabled ability’s.

4. Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.

5. The size of our head is not average by comparison to other life here on earth. In comparison to our body size, our head exceeds the compared percentage by anything else here on earth.

6. Lloyd Pye reveals DNA findings that could also support the idea of us having disabled powers. The first is that our DNA has been tampered with, and the second is the inverted sections, the third is the dormant unrecognizable sections.

7. Heightened remaining senses. We are the only species that has sex for enjoyment, as just an example. There are many things about our existing senses that could be overly sensitive as a result of missing ability’s.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join