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: 155
31
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Open my mind then. Explain how a creator could explain diversity. That is the point of this thread you know.
Good question, none that I have the answer to, I dunno, one species at a time I guess.




What? WHAT. I wrote the OP. It is about explaining diversity without refering to evolution. Something I have reminded you of constantly but you seem unable to grasp even this.

You cannot dissprove diversity. It is there infront of your face. Do you even think before replying?

You wrote:
Sorry, that was a typo, I meant evolution not diversity.




So I ask you again. If you cannot believe in a creator that you have been going on and on about and also cannot accept evolution then what are all these pages of drivel you have posted about??????????
Well the things I have been replying about are either how we aren't from earth, and were dumped here, or how evolution could not possibly exist. A creator does make it easier to visualize however who made the creator. I think there is something out there we don't quite understand yet.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Oh my God! You are the worst. It has been explained numerous times that the scientific definition of theory is different from the layman definition. A scientific theory is an abstraction of empirical data that is able to be expressed in quantifiable properties. In other words a theory is what science strives towards. It occurs when enough empirical data is collected that one can begin to make accurate predictions related to the phenomenon that is being studied. There is absolutely nothing better than a scientific theory.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 






Oh my God! You are the worst. It has been explained numerous times that the scientific definition of theory is different from the layman definition. A scientific theory is an abstraction of empirical data that is able to be expressed in quantifiable properties. In other words a theory is what science strives towards. It occurs when enough empirical data is collected that one can begin to make accurate predictions related to the phenomenon that is being studied. There is absolutely nothing better than a scientific theory.
Well judging from the subject and what I have been able to read up on, they are talking about the non factual type of theory. Do you have some proof that they aren't?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The fact that we're dealing with scientific terms here. If they meant the layman version then why use hypothesis? Why not use educated guess? Not to mention the fact that the modern evolutionary synthesis is composed of a number of scientific theories. The very scientific theories they are referring to on those sites. Now stop being an obstinate child and try actually introducing a legitimate argument that hasn't been debunked in the past 40 pages.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 



Wow I almost lost this reply, caught it by accident looking back.



If I'm ignorant then you should have NO problem answering this. I wanna know what life here on earth would suffer or miss us if we left earth. What life here on earth depends on us, aside from ones that we have set up to do so.

There is no if about it, you are ignorant, and purposely so.





If we disapeared all animals that rely on the food and enviroments we build would be affected both negatively and positvely. The blackbird in the UK was a woodland bird on the verge of extinction. That is until the English fell in love with gardening and now the blackbird is a very common sight in all gardens and parks.
Ok now what you have to do is sepearte the isolated incidents from the normal ones.

Was Mr Blackbird always dependant on humans, no I don't think so. So perhaps the question we need to be looking at is there actually something we did either directly or indirectly that caused him to almost go extinct? Ya, I'm certain of it.

You chose a bad example. It's like me holding a gun to you but you talked me out of killing you so your going around saying I saved your life.




The population of rats has exploded along with ours as they thrive on our waste.
You have to take a few steps back here, have they always depended on our waste, or is this a recent thing?




The house sparrow so named because it nests in the eaves of houses was so common it became a pest. Double glazing became popular and soffit boards were also replaced when the windows were fitted and the house sparrow population plumetted to a point where concern was shown for their survival.
Thats very nice but what did he do before there were houses? He couldn't have possibly always depended on them if they weren't there.




The great panda would be extinct now if man had not stepped in because it has become to narrow in its food source of sugar cane that when it fails they die and given their birth rate in the wild they faced extinctiony
And it was actually the humans fault for disrupting his supply of food to begin with. So your crediting us for saving him not crediting us for causing the problem to begin with.

When we are cleaning up after ourselves that does not count as a good deed.




The examples are numerous and most likely an impact either positive or negative can be seen in all species on this planet.
Usually negative but positive when we put several feet forward to make it so. Again we are usually the cause of the mess to begin with, so it doens't count.

You gave an honest attempt, and I got what I expected, not a single valid example of a species that depended on us. Maybe it was my fault for not indicating you must consider pre man involvment.

Good job trying though, none that impressed me however.
Your never going to look like the good guy cleaning up a mess when you were the guy that created the mess to begin with, I guess is the strongest thing we learned here.

There is no life the has depended on us from day one. It doens't exist. If there was, and mean just one, only one, it would be a glimmer of hope that proves we have a tie to this planet. But we don't. We are not from here.
I have proven this, and now so have you with your answers, or the lack of.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats very nice but what did he do before there were houses? He couldn't have possibly always depended on them if they weren't there.


The house sparrow only emerged 15,000 to 25,000 years ago. In contrast species of the genus Homo have been constructing structures to protect them from the elements for the past 500,000 years. The house sparrow has always been dependent on humans.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The house sparrow only emerged 15,000 to 25,000 years ago. In contrast species of the genus Homo have been constructing structures to protect them from the elements for the past 500,000 years. The house sparrow has always been dependent on humans.
Well here is where things get technical, and your going to know more than me cause I don't live in that area. Is he taking on homes because he was run out of his natual habitat? Was he pushed into homes by another force like global warming. You have to also remember that when you start helping out a speices for ANY reason, you can make them dependant on you from that point forward.This does not award you a purpose on earth.

You will find chances are more we did something that caused him to use houses. It could have even just been an population explosion due to accessibility. In other words making a nest in suburban homes was easier than doing it in the wild, so they started making more babies.

Chances are more than not, that our existance is what caused the problem to begin with. The funny part is that we have ALWAYS looked at dealing with wildlife in this manner and no one has ever figured out why that is. It's because we aren't suppose to be part of the picture to begin with. We aren't from here.

I hope at this point you guys are starting to see the picture, and just how clear it is that we aren't from here. Your welcome to toss any example at me, as I have reviewed them all, and if there is anyone that wants to find a purpose in life, trust me, I have tried.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   


Well here is where things get technical, and your going to know more than me cause I don't live in that area.


LMAO! now thats an understatement Xcalibur254 has slayed you on every point.
I'm still waiting for you to come up anything relevent to the OP.
Oh! who am I kidding your entertaining as hell



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Like I said the house sparrow appears to always have had a symbiotic relationship with humans. For example, Jesus mentions them in the Gospel of Matthew. The ancient Egyptians also had a sparrow hieroglyph. As it stands right now, the greatest cause in decline of sparrow populations is the burgeoning populations of house finches in the US and Sparrowhawks in Europe.

On a different note, as I mentioned previously there are other species that have thrived due to human intervention. Great examples would be corn and tobacco. Prior to humans these crops were found in only small areas of the world, now however they can be found almost anywhere. We also have the example of goatsbeard where two new species emerged due to human intervention. We can also look at all the types of bacteria that have a symbiotic relationship with humans.

I will now ask you a similar question to the one you have asked. What species have benefited from the existence of lions and what species would benefit if lions no longer existed?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





LMAO! now thats an understatement Xcalibur254 has slayed you on every point.
I'm still waiting for you to come up anything relevent to the OP.
Oh! who am I kidding your entertaining as hell
He slayed me ???? Hes not able to give just one example, hey why don't you help him out, I would love one valid answer.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Like I said the house sparrow appears to always have had a symbiotic relationship with humans. For example, Jesus mentions them in the Gospel of Matthew. The ancient Egyptians also had a sparrow hieroglyph. As it stands right now, the greatest cause in decline of sparrow populations is the burgeoning populations of house finches in the US and Sparrowhawks in Europe.
Ok thats find but having a relationship as such does not sound like he would die.




On a different note, as I mentioned previously there are other species that have thrived due to human intervention. Great examples would be corn and tobacco. Prior to humans these crops were found in only small areas of the world, now however they can be found almost anywhere. We also have the example of goatsbeard where two new species emerged due to human intervention. We can also look at all the types of bacteria that have a symbiotic relationship with humans.
Good call my GF even brought up corn. So what did corn do before humans? Would corn die without us, or are we pushing corn to use it ????




I will now ask you a similar question to the one you have asked. What species have benefited from the existence of lions and what species would benefit if lions no longer existed?

Ill guess elephants.

You guys are missing the mark here. I'm looking for other life that has always been dependant on humans, not ones that end up at our door step just because we feed them, thats called cupboard love. I'm looking for something solid that there is no question about we can say has needed man from the get go.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





LMAO! now thats an understatement Xcalibur254 has slayed you on every point.
I'm still waiting for you to come up anything relevent to the OP.
Oh! who am I kidding your entertaining as hell
He slayed me ???? Hes not able to give just one example, hey why don't you help him out, I would love one valid answer.


How ironic, everyone has been trying to get just one valid answer from you concerning the OP.

Xcalibur254 does not need any help dealing with you.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Well xcallibur, I guess its unanomouse, according to flyingfish, you have slayed me on both replies. So it looks like the entire purpose of human life is to aid and assist the sparrow, from certain destruction.

All of the complexity and talent we have is to aid these creatures and distance them from amost ceratin destruction.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Both replies? ALL replies

Go back and read you have been owned.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





How ironic, everyone has been trying to get just one valid answer from you concerning the OP.

Xcalibur254 does not need any help dealing with you.
I allready have said over and over that I dunno, it could be a creator that made all the diversity.


Evolutionism does NOT prove diversity. Then again neither does creation.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Both replies? ALL replies
Go back and read you have been owned.
No one has owned me on this matter, I still wait for a valid answer, unowned.

If you honestly think the purpose of our lives is to aid and assist the sparrow from destruction, I don't know what to tell you. That bird was not dependant on humans from day one, and just because he came to be only means that humans did it. It's called cupboard love. Humans did not give birth to a sparrow, there is no reason to believe he was always dependant on humans.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





How ironic, everyone has been trying to get just one valid answer from you concerning the OP.

Xcalibur254 does not need any help dealing with you.
I allready have said over and over that I dunno, it could be a creator that made all the diversity.


Evolutionism does NOT prove diversity. Then again neither does creation.


Look in my eyes, see the glazed look your bogus answer gave me?

My father always told me, I don't know is NOT an answer.

Is that all you got?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





On a different note, as I mentioned previously there are other species that have thrived due to human intervention. Great examples would be corn and tobacco. Prior to humans these crops were found in only small areas of the world, now however they can be found almost anywhere. We also have the example of goatsbeard where two new species emerged due to human intervention. We can also look at all the types of bacteria that have a symbiotic relationship with humans.
Looks like I missed tobacco. Of course tobacco grew like crazy, we are growing it to smoke it. You have to first look to see if there was human intervention. I'm looking for something that naturally depends on humans not something we MAKE depend on us.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Look in my eyes, see the glazed look your bogus answer gave me?

My father always told me, I don't know is NOT an answer.

Is that all you got?
So let me get this straight, we have clear documentation telling us we aren't from earth, not a single example can be given to me that ties us to earth, and you still want to understand diversity? Of course if we aren't from here, the answers aren't here either.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Let's put it this way there are about 500 to 1,000 different types of bacteria living in the human body. There is also about that many different types living on the skin. In fact there are about ten times more bacterial cells in the human body than human cells. Each of these cells depends on their human host for survival. The converse is also true. A human requires these bacteria to perform a number of functions. It is a perfect example of symbiosis.

As for your answer to my question... How do elephants benefit from the existence of lions? In fact lions are elephants greatest predators. Your question is flawed because you could ask the same question about almost any other animal besides humans and get a similar answer. Does that mean there are no native species to Earth?




top topics



 
31
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join