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: 109
31
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FLaKK
 


google: Lloyd Pye Interventionism




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Nope you are purposely missing that both chimp and human mothers need the same things to prevent the same problems in the same doses.

It is not a nesessity as nature does not care if a child is born unable to survive as it ensures life goes on by excess, only we care if our child is born with physical defects that threaten its life. We gained the knowledge of how to combat this by science

So unless you now say chimps were brought here by aliens then you and your beliefs have some major problems which I am sure you will ignore and deny
Well chimps are part of an existing eco system here on earth. So they fit in and have a diet here that supports them and the whole nine. We don't. The fact that our DNA is so close to them means nothing else.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





Darwin never said we evolved from apes he said that we have a common ancester. Also what you see today isn't our natural habitat. We have been able to manipulate our enviornment and not be subject to it this is why we have become so successful.
You know the only reason someone created the whole idea of the common ancestor was simply because no one has been able to produce a missing link. So it becomes the missing link and an excuse. Throwing another lineage in the pot doesn't make it anymore plausible.



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


If any of you still think we evolved from earth take a look at how many suppliments we have in a suppliment superstore.

Why on earth would we need so many pills? It's because there are so many things that are lacking in our intended diet, things that aren't here.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

4,000 defects:

library.thinkquest.org...

are you saying you didn't know that and wouldn't believe it until you saw more evidence? and then I'm sure you'll deny that information too. You don't find it strange that as a species we went from banging rocks for millions of years and then out of the blue we started building cities with mathematics that rival today's designs and incorporated things like pi and the golden ratio, languages, medicine, law/justice, out of nowhere we just came up with civilization and across the globe too with supposedly no interaction. Occam's scrutiny would say advanced beings is the best, most probable answer. Why not?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

we have no niche in this environment. never did



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by vasaga
 


That is one cool video ty very much.
You're more than welcome. Sadly, a lot of people here will let it slide. They're not interested in knowledge but in promoting and imposing consensus.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





4,000 defects:

library.thinkquest.org...

are you saying you didn't know that and wouldn't believe it until you saw more evidence? and then I'm sure you'll deny that information too. You don't find it strange that as a species we went from banging rocks for millions of years and then out of the blue we started building cities with mathematics that rival today's designs and incorporated things like pi and the golden ratio, languages, medicine, law/justice, out of nowhere we just came up with civilization and across the globe too with supposedly no interaction. Occam's scrutiny would say advanced beings is the best, most probable answer. Why not?
Explained very well. I'm actually laughing because it reminds me of that commercial where that baby is born, gets shot out of his mother, flying through the air, and is aging like 10 years a second and lands in a coffin and grave.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


First off your source is a Creationist website. which aren't the best at using up to date material. The pineal gland hasn't been considered a vestigial organ since at least 1917. The very fact that they consider it an organ unto itself and not part of the brain shows how outdated their sources are. When the pineal gland was considered to be a unique structure it was also thought that it actually wasn't part of the brain, however we know now that this isn't true. I suggest actually picking up a book on neuroanatomy instead of getting all of your information regarding the brain from less than credible websites.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





First off your source is a Creationist website. which aren't the best at using up to date material. The pineal gland hasn't been considered a vestigial organ since at least 1917. The very fact that they consider it an organ unto itself and not part of the brain shows how outdated their sources are. When the pineal gland was considered to be a unique structure it was also thought that it actually wasn't part of the brain, however we know now that this isn't true. I suggest actually picking up a book on neuroanatomy instead of getting all of your information regarding the brain from less than credible websites.
Well most of them must be less than credible because its all I have ever found.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


interesting how that area is known as the third eye. Terrance mckenna says the thing on top of the Buddah's head represents the pineal gland





posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So you're just taking Pye at his word? I just want to be clear about this, you've never seen the data that Pye is basing his claim of 4000 genetic defects on, right?
No its more like your just NOT taking his word. Because Pye coudln't possibly say anything thats true right? Like I said before, he probably had this information shared with him from the Labs hes working with.




Which also provides precisely zero citations for his claim. So the only reason you have to believe that claim is that Pye said it? And that it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside that it must be right?


It is odd how his information did seem to be the last key to confirm everything I was looking at. Keep in mind again Pye was the last thing I found, it was in total hindsight, and he makes no claims about god or the bible.

So what are you going to say about that? How can he know something he isn't even providing?




I know what you're going to say at this point -- "Well, you can't prove Pye wrong!" But, here's the thing, it's up to Pye to provide a source for that claim. He's making a positive claim that there are 4000 genetic defects in the human genome. The burden is on him to provide evidence for that claim. And since you keep parroting it, you should have seen that evidence at some point yourself and can, therefore, provide a link to it or some way for the rest of us to reference it, right?
I allready listed how to search for his video and in fact you watched it and corrected me on 2 dozen defects rather than 12.

If you don't want to believe or trust Pye that's your choice its just odd chance that his work provided a closing confirmation to everything I found, not what Pye found.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Like I said read a book on neuroanatomy. The pineal gland hasn't been considered vestigial since at least 1917 and we have known about its production of melatonin since the 1950s. Then again you said your research was focused on the supernatural which tends to ignore any research related to the brain since Descartes.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


If any of you still think we evolved from earth take a look at how many suppliments we have in a suppliment superstore.

Why on earth would we need so many pills? It's because there are so many things that are lacking in our intended diet, things that aren't here.


You of all people should understand that some people will swallow just about anything

edit on 9-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


And your point being? As I have stated already the only reason the pineal gland was ever considered special is because doctors used to think that it was the only structure in the brain that didn't appear in a pair. We have since proved this belief false. Unfortunately, New Age authors still stick with this claim because for some reason they don't look at any brain research that has been done since Descartes, who popularized the belief that the pineal gland is special in modern Western thought. He's also the one that many look to when they espouse a belief in dualism. I will however recommend a book to you and itsthetooth. Check out The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. He's widely regarded as the greatest psychologist of all time, but he was also very spiritual. Unfortunately, he couldn't reconcile his work with his faith and became depressed. This work pretty much shows him trying to find a way to be a scientist and a religious man.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows
 





Darwin never said we evolved from apes he said that we have a common ancester. Also what you see today isn't our natural habitat. We have been able to manipulate our enviornment and not be subject to it this is why we have become so successful.
You know the only reason someone created the whole idea of the common ancestor was simply because no one has been able to produce a missing link. So it becomes the missing link and an excuse. Throwing another lineage in the pot doesn't make it anymore plausible.


And that would be because the "missng link" fossils are somewhere miles off shore where a coastline used to be. Think AAT.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by colin42
 

In the year 2245, your scientist will find out that their carbonating analogy was off by 345 million years.

In 2027,a scientist will bring proof that its no way that a ape or mans ancestor could still be living in the same time, going to see ones relatives at the zoo.

In 3015 scientist will find out that the big bang was not even close to what the early scientist have claimed it to be.

In 2012, a man will explain what the alpha 1 and the 0 omega really meant.

Everything evolved…everything, ‘Even sound’


Sounds legit, but no source, cant believe it! Just kidding "lol" but sounds really interesting

Did you get this off some book or something? (Just curious)

In addition, in 2167, a scientist will discover a way to reprogram eyesight, and with that being, he will discover that there are other realms inside the very realm we live.

Evolution is good for this period of learning but its more to it then meets the ‘EYE’


edit on 21-9-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
God/Satan did it.




are you serious?

--i mean, its usually only evolution or God/Satan... if there is a third option if have never heard it.

unless you count "i dont know".. which is probably the best bet actually
edit on 21-9-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)


I'm open to the idea that some all divine force created the building blocks of the universe and then just sack back to see what happened. But that's as far as my common sense will allow me to go.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Nah. dont bother to read anything it contains as it all contradicts your 'beliefs'. You certainly have said many times that animals do not get sick but hey if you now say they do I suppose that means progress.
I would be more than glad to read it providing it doesn't take an hour, or you can point out which part to read.




Nope you are purposely missing that both chimp and human mothers need the same things to prevent the same problems in the same doses.
It could be a complicated situation where human presence on earth has knocked off that balance that happens to keep us in line. I say us because we do share a lot of traits with them, not to say we are related. We share 97% of the same DNA with primates, and 70% with rats, but we aren't related to them either.

Also keep in mind that that 3% difference in DNA is MILLIONS of genes. There is simply no way that millions of genes could change on there own in the blink of an eye. In addition to it leaving no trace of doing so. Even odder is how some peeps on here are telling me its natural selection while others tell me that there is purpose behind it, and changes are only made to advance us. Why is it that out of the other 5 million species here on earth, we have none that have evolved into anything else that we can identify to have evolved? Why is it that huamns are the ONLY thing we are able to say has evolved? It's because it never happened.




It is not a nesessity as nature does not care if a child is born unable to survive as it ensures life goes on by excess, only we care if our child is born with physical defects that threaten its life. We gained the knowledge of how to combat this by science

It a valid statement that nature does not care if a child is born, but if it were a chimp, it does care and its taken care of. If you leave a human baby unattended, its screwed. Not being able to leave a child unattended in the wild is a dumb idea but a good clue that just maybe we aren't from here. Of course there is also a difference of interaction with the other life and the ability of a baby not being able to take care of himself.




So unless you now say chimps were brought here by aliens then you and your beliefs have some major problems which I am sure you will ignore and deny
No, why would I ignore or deny. There is nothing substantial to prove they came here with us. Unless the jungle, food and enviroment came with them as well. Again they are part of something here, we are not. There is a big difference if you think about it.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The reason a human baby is so defenceless is because evolution had a choice to make. Either wait until the baby could be born and take care of itself in a relativaly short time and then have humans die out because its big brained head can't fit through the birth canal.

Or have the most powerful brain on the planet come out with an undeveloped body and have that infant be dependant on a parent for what is a long long time compared to other animals. The under devoloped body is a trade off to the large brain.

I swear that the people who argue against evolution on this and other threads haven't read a single book on the subject. And have never read a book on human biology.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join