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: 115
31
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Actual DNA samples...that's also how we know homo sapiens bread with Neanderthals.
We DNA has never proven that they mated, it's only because there is a lot in common in the DNA between us that people assume this.

Besides that, please tell me what makes you belive they successfully mated back then, but aren't able to now? And where did you get proof?




Not one of those sources uses objective evidence as backup...
So why do they all agree on different things that lead up to the same answer? Just one big coincidence I guess huh.




Again, you have zero objective evidence to back up that claim

Even worse, actual facts debunk your claims...
Just remember how much you are home when you go to your man made building to protect you from the not so human friendly weather, and your man made electricty to supply you with your man made heat, and man made clothing, food, dishes, AC, Plumbed water and so on. Ya, your home allright, and you made it that way too.




Clearly, you haven't even bothered to click the links I posted...they show that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature. And both the fossil record and DNA fully back it up too.

Look, you are clearly ignoring facts, and that's kinda sad given this website's "deny ignorance" mantra
But its never been witnessed to the point of say a monkey turning into a human, or a car turning into a dog. This is why I said it would take trillions of years at the given allowences for evolution to occur.

Now keep in mind thats just going from once species to another. Ok lets say I'm wrong cause you guys get all pissy and say where did I pull trillions of years from. Lets say it takes 10 million years for enough change to connect us to primates.

Now you have an even bigger problem, not only is there no proof of an intermediate species floating around, but we do in fact have over 5 million species here on earth. Now if it takes 10 million years on the average for a species to evolve (and I'm being generous here cause honestly primates and humans are VERY close in DNA ) Then all we have to do is multiply 10 million times the number of species 5 million and we know how it all started.

OH WAIT, one small problem, Earth is only 4 billion years old. OOPS. Problem.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well he used the word humans or We so thats the impression I got.

I'm talking about humans as well. If, as you claim, all of carried all of the 4000 genetic defects then autosomal dominant disorders, such as Huntington's disease, would be displayed in 50% of the population. Ergo, we don't all have all of the 4000 potential genetic disorders. It's that easy. Your interpretation is wrong.


I would guess there is a 97% chance they can contract the same things we get. And with a rat, would have a 70% chance.

More rectally-derived numbers that you just make up as you see fit.


Well that depends if you meant things we contract or things we automatically have in our genes.

You can keep claiming either one. I've shown how you're wrong on both.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I just told you that we have DNA evidence that fully backs it up




Well thats my fault for not being clear, we have never found any bones that connect us to another species.



Except…we have bones that do just that...and again, DNA fully backs it up going back even past 500,000 years ago.

But who cares about facts, right?
If the DNA shows a connection it simply means its the same species or a simular species. There is nothing in DNA that can prove we evolved from anything, its not possible. You would have to have comparisons over a period of time, not just comparisons from a different time.




Every single one of those things can be explained rationally without aliens

I think you watched a bit too much of that Ancient Alien show
Ya I only watched like 2.5 of them, I don't get that channel anymore.




I'm not sure how more often I have to repeat this, but THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL STUDIES PROVING ALIEN DNA or nuclear DNA!! All you have is Pye's word, which is ridiculous. He's a crook who simply wants to sell his books
So how many books do you think hes selling by not going public LOL. Why take it to several labs instead of just botching or lying about the first one and say, hey its all alien please buy my book.

Cause your wrong. He has worked on it for over 12 years LOL. He doesn't sound to eager to sell books to me. LOL.




He made those statements years ago, and always promised to publish the results...instead, we're still waiting and we have is his word. That's not proof, that's a joke, and you'd have to be incredibly gullible to fall for that pseudo-science.
He has to be carful what he does and how he does it, after all there are a lot of people waiting to come down on him for anything he does.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I don't agree I think it was very unbiased and neutral.

Shocking.


You must have missed the fact that they were talking about biblical times LOL.

And? There were Europeans in "biblical times" as well. When do you think Stonehenge was built? But von Däniken, being a good little ethnocentric European boy, never questions the engineering feats of civilized white people. Just the "primitive savages" possessing skin tones that are just a shade too dark.


Wow if you really think he is such a fraud why are so many people following him?

A few ways to answer this one:

1. Argumentum ad populum -- the logical fallacy that it must be true if many believe it. If you're going to present your argument that way then, by your own logic, evolution must be true because more people accept it than believe in the fraud that von Däniken is peddling.

2. How many is "so many"? He's sold about 60M copies of his books worldwide. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that each person is only buying one of his books (which we know isn't the case) and that each person is absolutely wholeheartedly and unequivocally believing in what he's saying (which we know isn't the case). In the United States alone, just shy of 50% of the public accepts evolution. With the US population kicking up around 300M, that's about 150M that accept evolution or two and a half times as many people as buy into von Däniken's fraud. And that's just in the US.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I'm talking about humans as well. If, as you claim, all of carried all of the 4000 genetic defects then autosomal dominant disorders, such as Huntington's disease, would be displayed in 50% of the population. Ergo, we don't all have all of the 4000 potential genetic disorders. It's that easy. Your interpretation is wrong.
Depends on how prominate it is. You know as well as I do there are things we have that never surface.

Here is a good one, we all have the gene that gives us herpes. Now some people get it, and some don't but if we all never had the gene we couldn't contract it. Same with hpv, we all have it.




More rectally-derived numbers that you just make up as you see fit.
No these were DNA comparisons on Pyes video.




You can keep claiming either one. I've shown how you're wrong on both.
I just explained two comumns up.
edit on 10-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





And? There were Europeans in "biblical times" as well. When do you think Stonehenge was built? But von Däniken, being a good little ethnocentric European boy, never questions the engineering feats of civilized white people. Just the "primitive savages" possessing skin tones that are just a shade too dark.
If I didn't know any better I would think your calling him racist.




2. How many is "so many"? He's sold about 60M copies of his books worldwide. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that each person is only buying one of his books (which we know isn't the case) and that each person is absolutely wholeheartedly and unequivocally believing in what he's saying (which we know isn't the case). In the United States alone, just shy of 50% of the public accepts evolution. With the US population kicking up around 300M, that's about 150M that accept evolution or two and a half times as many people as buy into von Däniken's fraud. And that's just in the US.
If your trying to tell me there is that many gullible people on earth I don't believe it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





But its never been witnessed to the point of say a monkey turning into a human, or a car turning into a dog.


This pretty much sums it up. Look, if the above is how you expect evolution to work, or if you believe that's how it should work, then you really have to read up on the theory. The links have been posted, with detailed explanations. However, all you seem to be doing is spout more nonsense. Please read the links, because discussing this is silly if your understanding of evolution is so wrong that I and others have to spoon feed you basic concepts.




We DNA has never proven that they mated, it's only because there is a lot in common in the DNA between us that people assume this.

Besides that, please tell me what makes you belive they successfully mated back then, but aren't able to now? And where did you get proof?



And clearly, once again you didn't bother reading the links I posted


And please don't tell me you just asked me why Neanderthals don't mate with homo sapiens anymore. It should be obvious why that's a silly question...




So why do they all agree on different things that lead up to the same answer? Just one big coincidence I guess huh.


Because myths always spread like that. Doesn't mean they're real.




Now you have an even bigger problem, not only is there no proof of an intermediate species floating around, but we do in fact have over 5 million species here on earth. Now if it takes 10 million years on the average for a species to evolve (and I'm being generous here cause honestly primates and humans are VERY close in DNA ) Then all we have to do is multiply 10 million times the number of species 5 million and we know how it all started.

OH WAIT, one small problem, Earth is only 4 billion years old. OOPS. Problem.


Yes...oops, problem. The problem's apparently math, because your calculation assumes every single species evolved after each other. That's clearly not the case, they developed in parallel.

And the time it takes for a species to evolve depends entirely on the type of species. Crocodiles can take millions of years, viruses can take only a few days...and there's everything in between. But thanks for just admitting to speciation, FINALLY



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





But its never been witnessed to the point of say a monkey turning into a human, or a car turning into a dog.


This pretty much sums it up. Look, if the above is how you expect evolution to work, or if you believe that's how it should work, then you really have to read up on the theory. The links have been posted, with detailed explanations. However, all you seem to be doing is spout more nonsense. Please read the links, because discussing this is silly if your understanding of evolution is so wrong that I and others have to spoon feed you basic concepts.




We DNA has never proven that they mated, it's only because there is a lot in common in the DNA between us that people assume this.

Besides that, please tell me what makes you belive they successfully mated back then, but aren't able to now? And where did you get proof?



And clearly, once again you didn't bother reading the links I posted


And please don't tell me you just asked me why Neanderthals don't mate with homo sapiens anymore. It should be obvious why that's a silly question...




So why do they all agree on different things that lead up to the same answer? Just one big coincidence I guess huh.


Because myths always spread like that. Doesn't mean they're real.




Now you have an even bigger problem, not only is there no proof of an intermediate species floating around, but we do in fact have over 5 million species here on earth. Now if it takes 10 million years on the average for a species to evolve (and I'm being generous here cause honestly primates and humans are VERY close in DNA ) Then all we have to do is multiply 10 million times the number of species 5 million and we know how it all started.

OH WAIT, one small problem, Earth is only 4 billion years old. OOPS. Problem.


Yes...oops, problem. The problem's apparently math, because your calculation assumes every single species evolved after each other. That's clearly not the case, they developed in parallel.

And the time it takes for a species to evolve depends entirely on the type of species. Crocodiles can take millions of years, viruses can take only a few days...and there's everything in between. But thanks for just admitting to speciation, FINALLY


All these posts and the toothy guy still doesn't understand that we didn't evolve from monkeys and he doesn't understand that a human IS a primate. He just can't comprehend what's placed in front of him. It's not a case of he doesn't agree. It's a case of he's incapable of understanding. Which is why it must be aliens. Kind of a runnining on home to mumma thing
edit on 10-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
Evolution dies not lack an explanation and it is backed up by evidence. You cannot explain diversity evident by the total lack of it when asked so until you can come up with a theory, backed with evidence Evolution wins, every time.

I agree not knowing X is no proof god did it. It does not stop the claims by the creationists side though does it?

I also agree evolution has nothing to say about creation but creationist cannot understand or will not understand this fact.

We, on this thread have not had anyone put forward an alternative only blind faith in a guy called Pye and rubbish about we dont fit.

You have your own thoughts but will not share. What a cop out. So again you post on a thread asking for an alternative explanation with no intent to do so.

Creationists do not seem able to grasp the concept and get upset when we ask for an alternative explanation to evolution and I believe that anger stems from the knowledge that you do not have one.

BTW "it's not my own view, but the truth"
Just because the creationists use those arguments doesn't mean you are justified to do so yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right, and if you can claim that you are right or whatever, you shouldn't need those arguments in the first place because the truth speaks for itself. But apparently, evolution needs some crusading...

I explained why I won't post my views. I will say that I have nothing against evolution, in specific particular senses of the word, since it can mean different things and is used randomly with these different meanings. In this case, it basically means change over time, and I have nothing against this particular aspect of evolution.
Not sharing has nothing to do with anger in my case btw. It has to do with the clear intentions of people here.. Like.. Why do you criticize me for posting in a thread because I lack the intention to share an alternative view? Why do you want me to share one so badly? Aside from that.. Are you here to share an alternative view? No? Oh right, the question wasn't directed at you either then, now was it? Why are you here then? So your reason is also different than what the thread was intended to.. So.. Why do you criticize me while you're doing the same thing?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

that argument has no bearing on the objective proof that cave people with rocks and sticks could not build these things. It's as simple as that.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

that argument has no bearing on the objective proof that cave people with rocks and sticks could not build these things. It's as simple as that.


Not really. As humans, our brains have been just as developed as they are today for tens of thousands of years or more. They had thoughts, dreams, and culture just like us. They had technology, just of a different type. There was no industrialized pressure to get to the type of technology we use today.

It can be surprising, however, just how much you can do with "rocks and sticks." Create a pivot and you can move a 10,000 lb. block through rotation. Use water and boats, and you can transport things quickly. I think too much, we fall under the mistaken premise that everything before us was primitive people who could do no more than build huts and hunt wildlife.

Did you know, for example, that the Native Americans had cities? We call them the Mississippians today, because most of the cities laid along the Mississippi River. See, the thing that wiped out the cities was climate change and European disease.

It's just like the idea that Arabic countries are backward. They aren't backward or primitive at all. They are just as advanced as us. They just don't have the materials and such to exploit the technology. People will do what they must to survive and enjoy life. If you don't need more or don't realize there is more, then there's no reason to have more advanced technology. Oh, and you don't need help from aliens either.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
And this (Gobekli Tepe) is objective evidence of the alien visitors how, exactly? It's definitely making us question our current notions of early civilization. But just because we don't know all of the answers at this point doesn't mean aliens did it.

from the link: ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

"At first the Neolithic Revolution was viewed as a single event—a sudden flash of genius—that occurred in a single location, Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what is now southern Iraq, then spread to India, Europe, and beyond. Most archaeologists believed this sudden blossoming of civilization was driven largely by environmental changes: a gradual warming as the Ice Age ended that allowed some people to begin cultivating plants and herding animals in abundance. The new research suggests that the "revolution" was actually carried out by many hands across a huge area and over thousands of years. And it may have been driven not by the environment but by something else entirely."

"something else entirely" exactly as and when the Sumerians said it happened seven thousand years ago. They explain the "sudden flash of genius" and exactly what it was that removed us from our niche and made us smart. They say specifically who gave them everything they had. They admit they didn't do it themselves.

"the site is vaguely reminiscent of Stonehenge, except that Göbekli Tepe was built much earlier and is made not from roughly hewn blocks but from cleanly carved limestone pillars splashed with bas-reliefs of animals—a cavalcade of gazelles, snakes, foxes, scorpions, and ferocious wild boars. The assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the Great Pyramid of Giza. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world."

you can't pretend this can be done by banging rocks on the stones that must have been much heavier than 16 tons before they were carved. The guy says they could've been raised by posts or whatever like that solves the entire logistic problems involved with something of this scale. You can't downplay the reality of this with a shrug of your shoulders like when you said "just because we don't know all of the answers at this point ". I know the answer to what it takes to work with stone to that degree and people back then couldn't do that without help.


Originally posted by iterationzero
Seriously, you're as bad as the traditional creationists with their cries of "I dunno... God did it!" Keep invoking your evidence for aliens as "we don't know, so it must be aliens" because as we learn more and more about the world around us, your aliens are going to continue to be an ever-shrinking ball of scientific ignorance.


I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the ancient cultures are saying that. Why won't you take them for their word? I know why because it shatters your entire world and God knows we can't have that!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
... They had technology, just of a different type. There was no industrialized pressure to get to the type of technology we use today... It can be surprising, however, just how much you can do with "rocks and sticks." Create a pivot and you can move a 10,000 lb. block through rotation. Use water and boats, and you can transport things quickly. I think too much, we fall under the mistaken premise that everything before us was primitive people who could do no more than build huts and hunt wildlife.



you obviously have no idea what kinds of scale we're talking about. How was that 5 ton block cut? did you use rocks and sticks? I don't disagree the iq potential of those ancient people was at par or even exceeded what we have today. But there is no way, and I don't care how creatively one tries, you can not cut lift and transport stones of this scale without something more than what they had. Just like with the pyramids at Giza, the number of blocks could not possibly be cut transported and put in place in the time frame the "experts" swear by. How many more times do we have to hear them eat crow that they don't have a firm grasp on this? It's childish to not accept the reality of aliens and their obvious interventions with us throughout history. How is it that space people are talked about by cultures from all over the world.

You make a good point when you said "I think too much, we fall under the mistaken premise that everything before us was primitive people who could do no more than build huts and hunt wildlife.". We could do more and we did more and the evidence is still there but the technology is not. If it was so simple why isn't it still possible? Where's the technology to do this stuff at these scales? Why would that super knowledge be allowed fade away and disappear just like that? Maybe because the people who brought the technology took it away? Makes sense to me.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





This pretty much sums it up. Look, if the above is how you expect evolution to work, or if you believe that's how it should work, then you really have to read up on the theory. The links have been posted, with detailed explanations. However, all you seem to be doing is spout more nonsense. Please read the links, because discussing this is silly if your understanding of evolution is so wrong that I and others have to spoon feed you basic concepts.
I read them before. I know I'm exaggerating but ultimately this is about species evolving into another species.

I'm sorry but we don't have the time constraints with the age of earth to allow evolution to occur. It's just not possible. Your talking about microevolution jumping into macroevolution and not leaving behind any evolving species going in other directions. Seriously hasn't anyone done the math on this? I still feel it would take Trillions of years for primates to evolve into humans. If you want to say a common ancestor than that just means more time.
Even if my time table is way off and it only takes 10 million years per species to evolve, you still don't have enough time on earth to explain all five million species.




And clearly, once again you didn't bother reading the links I posted

And please don't tell me you just asked me why Neanderthals don't mate with homo sapiens anymore. It should be obvious why that's a silly question...
I read the link saying that speciation can occur in 10,000 generations. So what this means is we should have proof from earlier bones showing the differences proving speciation, AND we don't. because it's not there.




Because myths always spread like that. Doesn't mean they're real.
I think the excuse is a myth.




Yes...oops, problem. The problem's apparently math, because your calculation assumes every single species evolved after each other. That's clearly not the case, they developed in parallel.
Ok now you just created a new problem, how did they start?




And the time it takes for a species to evolve depends entirely on the type of species. Crocodiles can take millions of years, viruses can take only a few days...and there's everything in between. But thanks for just admitting to speciation, FINALLY
I never denied it on a small scale. Its the large scale that we don't have enough time here on earth for it to be possible.
Your trying to convince me that we evolved soley from mutated and virus genes, that just magically disappeared leaving no trace of adjacent history. Right man come on.

Speciation has never been observed in human genes and whats real funny is how humans seem to be the only thing we like to think has evolved.
I'm surrounded by 5 million species that were suppose to have all evolved from one another yet we aren't able to find any connecting links aside from us all being made up of the same protiens and amino acids. Sounds more like a creator re using the same structure building blocks to make different life with.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





All these posts and the toothy guy still doesn't understand that we didn't evolve from monkeys and he doesn't understand that a human IS a primate. He just can't comprehend what's placed in front of him. It's not a case of he doesn't agree. It's a case of he's incapable of understanding. Which is why it must be aliens. Kind of a runnining on home to mumma thing
I just love how everyone avoids my direct point that proves evolution is hiding.

Maybe its me making assumptions, but I thought it was only fair to assume that humans weren't the only thing evolving here on earth. I'm also assuming everything is ALWAYS evolving, all the time. If I'm wrong with any of these then to some degree we can agree that evolution is hiding.

Lets assume they all apply. If we all started out from the common fly, lets just say as an example, then moved to a bumble bee, birds, cats, dogs, eventually ending up as humans. I"m saying it would take trillions of years to make this happen.

From a common sense point of view, it has to be possible that DNA does actually change, after all there are certain things about life in general that require this to happen. There would be sections of DNA that normally change, and other sections that are forbidden to change. Changing into another species would be forbidden. It really looks more to me like science was duped on this and was probably viewing a section that would be allowed to change. This step would be in the last video that was posted on here a few pages ago. Where the Helix gets split and reassembled. It's proof that our body is always going though a period where change can happen.

We know from experience that anytime a species makes a severe change that it dies. This is again why I keep saying it would take trillions of years because it would be a long drawn out process. I'm seriously getting tired of having to repeat the same thing over and over so you know what, I will do the math and present exactly how many years it would take for humans to have evolved from primates. There will be some generalization.

I think I heard Pye say the difference between us and primates is about 3 million genes.
If it takes 10,000 generations to yeild an example of speciation, this is simple math.
We could reproduce about every 20 years, which means every 500 years a gene could speciate.
Now we just need to multiply 500 times the 3 million and we have 150 billion (if I did it right, my eyes are bad).
Once again here is the problem you guys, we don't have that long. Earth is only 4 billion years old. so big problem. Now if your still hell bent on being sure that evolution is correct then all I can tell you is it didn't happen on earth.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Depends on how prominate it is. You know as well as I do there are things we have that never surface.

Yes, and that's the definition of an autosomal dominant disorder. Maybe you read a basic genetics text and try and understand how these diseases are expressed. It's why I chose Huntington's as an example. Huntington's is autosomal dominant and has complete penetrance i.e. if it's in your genetics at all, you will have the clinical symptoms of the disease. This means I actually underestimated the number of people that would have Huntington's -- if everyone had all 4000 genetic disorders, everyone would have Huntington's. It only takes one copy of the gene that causes Huntington's and it expresses in 100% of the people who have a copy of the gene. The portion of the population that has Huntington's is well under 1%, ergo we all don't have all 4000 genetic disorders.


Here is a good one, we all have the gene that gives us herpes. Now some people get it, and some don't but if we all never had the gene we couldn't contract it. Same with hpv, we all have it.

And once again, you're just pulling things out of your rectum to support your case. Herpes is not a genetic disorder. Most people have been exposed to some form of one of many varieties of the herpes virus at some point, but it's not a genetic disorder.

Between your apparent inability to process any kind of factual indication that shows your interpretation of what Pye is saying is wrong and you willingness to lie to support your case, I'm starting to think you're a troll.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If I didn't know any better I would think your calling him racist.

Ethnocentrism... racism... I'll let you puzzle out the subtle differences.


If your trying to tell me there is that many gullible people on earth I don't believe it.

Given that you think everyone who believes in evolution is gullible, there are two and half times as many people gullible people who living in the United States right now who believe in evolution as there are people who have bought von Däniken's books worldwide in over 30 years. So your own logic puts the lie to your incredulity.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


you can't pretend this can be done by banging rocks on the stones that must have been much heavier than 16 tons before they were carved. The guy says they could've been raised by posts or whatever like that solves the entire logistic problems involved with something of this scale. You can't downplay the reality of this with a shrug of your shoulders like when you said "just because we don't know all of the answers at this point ". I know the answer to what it takes to work with stone to that degree and people back then couldn't do that without help.

So we have to revise our view of the technology they possessed. It still doesn't mean aliens did it. It just means mankind was more advanced earlier than we had originally understood.


I'm not saying that at all.

Yes, you are. You take every single event that's currently unexplained and invoke aliens as the cause. It's no different than creationist doing the same thing with God.


I'm saying the ancient cultures are saying that. Why won't you take them for their word? I know why because it shatters your entire world and God knows we can't have that!!!

Because it wouldn't be taking them at their word, it would be taking you at your interpretation of their word. Unless you've actually spoken to these people from ~10kya and confirmed that these are eyewitness accounts of alien contact and not just allegorical stories. Have you?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I read them before. I know I'm exaggerating but ultimately this is about species evolving into another species.

I'm sorry but we don't have the time constraints with the age of earth to allow evolution to occur. It's just not possible. Your talking about microevolution jumping into macroevolution and not leaving behind any evolving species going in other directions. Seriously hasn't anyone done the math on this? I still feel it would take Trillions of years for primates to evolve into humans. If you want to say a common ancestor than that just means more time.
Even if my time table is way off and it only takes 10 million years per species to evolve, you still don't have enough time on earth to explain all five million species.



I already explained why your math is seriously flawed, it assumes that every single species alive today evolved after eachother instead of in parallel. Mathematically, your entire timeline calculation is garbage.




I read the link saying that speciation can occur in 10,000 generations. So what this means is we should have proof from earlier bones showing the differences proving speciation, AND we don't. because it's not there.


We have thousands of such bones and DNA evidence that backs it up. It's beyond me why you keep on ignoring this FACT!



You are almost like a religious believer who ignores every single fact that goes against his belief. You created your own irrational new age religion...well done, kudos





Ok now you just created a new problem, how did they start?


Scientists haven't completely figured out how life started yet...but that doesn't mean you can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aliens, god, etc.) without presenting objective evidence. And you posted ZERO objective evidence that would support your claims.




I never denied it on a small scale. Its the large scale that we don't have enough time here on earth for it to be possible.


We do have enough time, you can't do simple calculations





Speciation has never been observed in human genes and whats real funny is how humans seem to be the only thing we like to think has evolved.


I really don't know what to say apart from: PLEASE read the wiki article on evolution, you clearly have no clue and every single one of your posts makes you look silly in front of people who had basic biology. We've witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature as I've told you at least a dozen times...and funny enough, you keep on ignoring it because it destroys your fantasy world


Humans are still evolving. For example, the average female is now shorter than just 100 years ago. And who exactly claims only humans evolved????? Scientists say every single thing around you evolved, not just humans...really not sure where you got your garbage statement, probably from that crook Pye





I'm surrounded by 5 million species that were suppose to have all evolved from one another yet we aren't able to find any connecting links aside from us all being made up of the same protiens and amino acids. Sounds more like a creator re using the same structure building blocks to make different life with.


No, they didn't all evolve from eachother, they evolved from ancestors, in parallel...which is why your math calculation is off and simply pointless.

Please do yourself a favor and read the following links to fill your obvious gaps in knowledge


LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3

I am not trying to be mean, but you are trying to argue about something you clearly don't have a clue about.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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?

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?

Evolution talks about how life started as a single celled organism and changed into the diversity we see today. It has nothing to do with slime. You need to go post in an abiogenesis thread. This is about evolution. Please stick to the topic.


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.


You can't say "IMO they are accurate". Either they are accurate and can be backed up by equations or they are pure guesswork on your part. Just like the statement you made about it taking trillions of years for man to evolve from ape like ancestors. Or your statement about a 747 emerging out of tornado or cars evolving It's completely false, fabricated guesses about probability and nothing more. You're just throwing big numbers out there and dropping your jaw in awe.





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.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. You need provide evidence, or your guesses are nothing more than guesses. "Well I think I'm accurate". Well that's nice, but that's not evidence or proof of your standpoint. You are speculating about what you don't understand. Supernatural doesn't only mean aliens. It could mean a variety of things that we do not yet understand.


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.

We are intelligent and we haven't separated ourselves from the planet, we just dont directly live off our own efforts in nature anymore. We still survive by eating plants and animals, building tools and shelter, and using our intelligence to troubleshoot and problem solve. Again this is just your opinion. Why won't you provide evidence? You seem to be dodging every question asked of you and doing nothing more than speculating. Read the OP again. Everything you post here is off topic.



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.


I didn't just step in. I've been posting in here for a while, but most of my posts were ignored. You haven't provided objective evidence of anything. You've just explained why you have your personal views. I don't care what you believe, it's just not fact by a long shot.

How do you know that Mother Goose wasn't actually an alien and the story doesn't go back to ancient times? No distinct writer can be found, so there's just as much evidence for this as the bible




top topics



 
31
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join