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: 181
31
<< 178  179  180    182  183  184 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Seriously....? you'replanning to jump back 100 pages and start all that milk for calcium nonsense?

Brasov, do yourself a favour and read from about page 60. Its about then that tooth started to change the opinions that he (she?) is about to start spouting. From "we need cows milk blah blah blah" to "i never said we cant survive without milk"


Ya I think its honestly one of the most idiotic understandings yet. We need calcium so we take it from the cow. So some people reply that we don't need it, its just an easy way to get calcium. So then you have to look at how we pasturize, homogenize, fortify, process, package, ship, and refrigerate, just to have it. It honestly makes no sense. However is you agree just like the bible says that we aren't from here, then it makes total sense.

I have also provided a link with a chart to show where else we can get calcium from and what our needs are based on our age. To my dismay, our need for it actually goes up as we get older, so its not just a kids things. The other question is why aren't our mothers producing enough of it so that we can just get it from our mother like other species do. It is odd that our mothers don't produce it like we need, it, its just as odd that we rely on other things for it as well. Why not just fix the problem so that mom can produce it the way she is suppose to.

One thing is for sure about the human species we excel and depend on adapting, something that I think has nothng to do with evoltuion. Had we of evolved correctly, we wouldn't need to adapt.

We could get good sources of calcium from specific things but those things aren't always available in all of the areas we live, so its like saying we only suppose to live in a few select areas. When the chart gets down to fruits and veggies, its impossible to get the RDA from those, so now your faced with a new problem where you have to gorge yourself on those to get the RDA. So man created suppliments, lots of suppliments. It's another sign of redundant adaptation because we have no other way to fix the problem. And FYI we should all be taking them. It's yet another clue that we aren't from here.




BTW tooth, as a teacher myself, I can inform you that the modern way of thinking regarding teaching places joint resposibility for learning equally with the teacher and the student. You are being provided with the opportunity to learn, reasearch is being carried out on your behalf to allow you more time to think about the information that is displayed. It is no one elses fault but yours, when all of this work is being done for you, if you remain ignorant.


No one is doing any work for me aside from providing links. I look at them. They all say they are either a postulated theory, or a hypothetical theory. Work finished.




Tooth has presented an alternative Pan galactic castaway / penal colony, whatever, that he seems to believe in 100%. Thats fine, however this thread has now become can you prove tooths theory or evolution correct.


Well no its more like clear redundant proof is here showing that we aren't from here, so there is no way we could have evolved from apes.




I have a suggestion. to tooth, stick to the thread, stop trying to push your fantasy, if you have evidence/proof of evolution being wrong present it, if not, then you have nothing more to say relating to this thread. If you want to start a thread where people can attempt to prove your theory incorrect go ahead and do it.


Well that was the whole point, how could we have evolved from here if we aren't from here.




I will state again, with reference to the title of this thread. the answer so far is no, No one has presented evidence to even suggest that the theory (scientific) of evolution is wrong.


I know some people accept both the bible and evolution but there does seem to be that pesky condradiction if we arent from here. There has been tons of evidence that evoltuion is debunked. Most of which came directly from the links I was provided supposeing to be in favor of evolution. When something is presented has a postulated theory, it makes me wonder if your a teacher, and you miss that, what kind of a teacher are you?

Anyhow aside, the bible makes it clear that we aren't from here. Earth is not our home, in hebrews...
gspcsermons.blogspot.com...
In the same section you will also find a slight edit or understanding error, where we have powers that have been removed. Thats soemthing else I have been claiming as well.

Evolution has never been observed anywhere. There has been some viruse that have taken on changes but those changes were always within the species to begin with. Working with viruse, and changes taking place always still...




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


...ends up with the same viruse. As in another example someone was trying to push this whole idea on me about a polar bear that was found to have mated with a kodiac bear, claiming it was proof of evolution. You started with bears, you mated bears, and you ended up with bears, nothing changes, its not evolution. Microevolution has claimed to of been witnessed in labs in this fashion, and its nothing more than changes that were always allowed in that species to begin with.

I love that saying that science uses evolution all the time in modern medicine. Just because a strain of flu takes on a new strain does not mean its no longer a flu strain, and in fact it remains so. You started with the flu, and ended with a flu. There has been lab work done to try to force and observe species changing into other species, and its never been witnessed. What has been witnessed is when too many changes do take place the species dies real quick.

From what I have been provided so far, evolutionism has never been witnessed in a lab or in the wild. There is a big difference between a flu strain changing strains and an ape becoming a man.
edit on 15-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





So do you deny that genetic mutations happen, even though they've been observed in a lab and nature? If you don't take it past the point of adaptation, that seems like the only option, unless you are trying to come up with an alternate version of evolution, but again, if that's the case, its on you to show evidence of this. Also you misunderstand the fact that organisms do not HAVE to change. If their respective environments do not change significantly, you won't see that much change in their development over the years, such with sharks and crocodiles. They have been perfectly fine for their environments.


So you feel that genetic mutations have been observed in both a lab and in nature. Do you have any links that support that?
edit on 15-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You do not understand evolution. That is clear. Apes? again?

You do not understand biology. Nursing mothers continue to produce milk as long as they continue to breast feed, This can be many years, you need to understand the process of weaning.

You do not understand history. of farming, of habitation, of industry, of man.

You do not understand geography. Bushmen.

You do not understand language. Theory

I can actualy feel my IQ drop everytime I read one of your posts.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   


So you feel that genetic mutations have been observed in both a lab and in nature. Do you have any links that support that?
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Yes
Here are few recent papers published among hundreds of observations.

Mitochondrial genome mutates when reprogrammed
Link

Decoding chronic lymphocytic leukemia
Link

Full Text



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   


Ya I think its honestly one of the most idiotic understandings yet. We need calcium so we take it from the cow. So some people reply that we don't need it, its just an easy way to get calcium. So then you have to look at how we pasturize, homogenize, fortify, process, package, ship, and refrigerate, just to have it. It honestly makes no sense. However is you agree just like the bible says that we aren't from here, then it makes total sense. I have also provided a link with a chart to show where else we can get calcium from and what our needs are based on our age. To my dismay, our need for it actually goes up as we get older, so its not just a kids things. The other question is why aren't our mothers producing enough of it so that we can just get it from our mother like other species do. It is odd that our mothers don't produce it like we need, it, its just as odd that we rely on other things for it as well. Why not just fix the problem so that mom can produce it the way she is suppose to.
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You have no idea what your talking about.

Increasing Daily Calcium Will Not Reduce the Risk of Fractures in Later Life.


The authors conclude that while low levels of calcium intake (less than 700 mg per day) increase the risk of fractures and osteoporosis, there is no need to start increasing calcium intake above the amount. Increases did not further reduce the fracture and osteoporosis risk.


Paper

Infact mounting evidence shows that calcium supplements increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Study adds weight to link between calcium supplements and heart problems
Link

Aurora A Kinase May Contribute to Kidney Disease
Link




Ya I think its honestly one of the most idiotic understandings yet.

LOL priceless. Pot calling the kettle black.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





You do not understand evolution. That is clear. Apes? again?


So what does that mean? We are NOT related to Apes at all?




You do not understand biology. Nursing mothers continue to produce milk as long as they continue to breast feed, This can be many years, you need to understand the process of weaning.


And I understand all that but your reply is not answering the simple question of why we turned to cows milk to begin with.




You do not understand history. of farming, of habitation, of industry, of man.


Of course I do, and some of my best friends have propritary holds on certain things in farming.




You do not understand geography. Bushmen.
Geography and bushmen do not answer any of my unanswered questions.




You do not understand language. Theory


Well I looked up the definition of the word theory to make sure, and its not looking good for evolutionism.




I can actualy feel my IQ drop everytime I read one of your posts.


In order for that to happen, you would have to be agreeing with some of my input, thank you, because no one else seems to be able to wrap there mind around it.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





In order for that to happen, you would have to be agreeing with some of my input, thank you, because no one else seems to be able to wrap there mind around it.


LOL....I'll add you don't even understand the english language properly
Do you even understand what you wrote means? I'll give you a hint.....agreeing with your "input" means one has to dumb themselves down.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Yes
Here are few recent papers published among hundreds of observations.

Mitochondrial genome mutates when reprogrammed
Link


Ok I checked out this link about diseased stricken DNA that mutates.
I was actually looking for something more that proves we eventually evolved from apes, and as you can see, this has nothing to do with it.
Now some assumptions can be made that this disease is how we evolved, but I find it hard to believe we ventured into humans from apes via a disease.
The other problem is that this disease has not been witnessed making the changes to the degree that would be needed to bring us to humans from apes.
IMO these types of changes were ALWAYS privy to disease and offers nothing in the realm of macroevolution.
Mainstream science has mistakenly accepted viruses and disease as a form of evolution, and they are wrong.
When that disease first attacked a human, you started with a human, after all was said and done, you still have a human. The programming changes that would be required to change a species into something else would cause rapid death and they have proven this in labs many times over.

Science has accepted virus and disease altering organisms in the realm of evolution only because on the molecular level in very nitch situations, it seems to fit the bill. I'm trying to figure out where the stretch from this to apes becoming humans is.

I read the second link.
I think its the same principle. Our genetic make up is not based on disease and viruses, so these rules do not apply. With the acception that those can sometimes changes some things about us, but not to extremes.

I read the full link as well.
Its apparent that viruse and disease don't follow the normal rules of evolution and offer some insight into some interesting rule bending. This is basically altering DNA which is something I was joking about pages ago, its real. The problem is that it does not prove in any shape or form that one species can turn into another species. Granted it might make us sick and die but becoming sick and dying is far from apes turning into humans.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





You have no idea what your talking about.

Increasing Daily Calcium Will Not Reduce the Risk of Fractures in Later Life.


Thats fine, I found sites saying that we need to increase our daily intake as we get older. There is clearly a difference between not having enough to being with and taking more then what your body will use.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
No reason to aploigise to me. Your post was spot on. Itsthespoof is about to unleash the whole thing over with new meat to feast.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





LOL....I'll add you don't even understand the english language properly Do you even understand what you wrote means? I'll give you a hint.....agreeing with your "input" means one has to dumb themselves down.
Yes I know, I was being sarcastic.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Where are you getting this ape turning to humans garbage?
All your doing is polluting the waters with this dis-info.

Shame on you! grow up!



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





LOL....I'll add you don't even understand the english language properly Do you even understand what you wrote means? I'll give you a hint.....agreeing with your "input" means one has to dumb themselves down.
Yes I know, I was being sarcastic.


Ahhh...OK, it's just hard to pick out your sarcasm when it's mingled with other craziness. Carry on Larry.....



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





Ahhh...OK, it's just hard to pick out your sarcasm when it's mingled with other craziness. Carry on Larry.....
Whos larry?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Seriously you have done nothing but contradict my questions by answering incorrectly then turn around and say you have provided answers.
Seriously. What I have done is show how wrong you are and how you avoid answering anything that shows how wrong you are. You are correct that YOU have to provide that the complete rubbish you write has evidence to back it up.


Well then, here is a link you MUST read...
Ok here goes........


We have clear documentation in writtin that earth is NOT our home, and still you brew in putting your arm around an ape. You need to pull you head out.
Ha ha ha a blog from an idiot. Yeah thats the evidence I need. You have no clue what evidence is.


See here is another example, pudding doesn't cut it.
I think it is an apt description as the pudding I was visaulising is full of nuts.


Ya its someone that lives in the wild and doesn't enguage in all the things we do as a society.
The point is they 'LIVE' in the wild. They do not have any of the things you say are essential to live past puberty. Now answer the question. HOW.


Fantasy? Are you blind? I was actually quoting the site.
Are you 100% dense. You told me I had supplied All the links and I replied I had not. How many times do you want to be shown wrong??????


And you think that you standing on the same corner yelling out that apes are your brothers, is any different?
Yes because I have the evidence to show it. You have been made privy to it but refused to look. My anology does fail though, as a drunk eventialy sobers up wheresas you remain just as ignorant in the morning, every morning.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Where are you getting this ape turning to humans garbage?
All your doing is polluting the waters with this dis-info.

Shame on you! grow up!


Well silly me, I thought we are decendants of them.

So is your version going to tell me we have nothing to do with them?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Brasov. Idmonster speaks the truth and if this post from itsthespoof does not convince you then nothing will.


edit on 15-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





You do not understand evolution. That is clear. Apes? again?

So what does that mean? We are NOT related to Apes at all?


We are related to apes, and every other organism currently on this planet, just not descended from any of them. You keep ascerting that evolution states that we are descended from apes, it doesnt, Evolution maintains that we (humans) and apes have a common ancestor. That common ancestor may have been ape like, but almost certainly wasnt an ape.



You do not understand biology. Nursing mothers continue to produce milk as long as they continue to breast feed, This can be many years, you need to understand the process of weaning.

And I understand all that but your reply is not answering the simple question of why we turned to cows milk to begin with.


Because it was nutritional, easy to obtain. And we didnt "turn to cows milk" goats milk and goats cheese was being used long before references to cows due to the comparative ease of domestication of goats over cows. Imagine the goat herd, isolated in the hills, thirsty. Amongst the flock are some nursing mothers. Now try not to burden the simple goat herder with your sophisticated modern mind and what do you think he did. It doesnt hurt the goat if he helps himself to a littl milk. And further to your previous posts, this milk would have been unpasturisd. The only reason we do treat milk is to enable a longer "shelf life" allowing for transportaion across great distances, from places that are "good for the cow" to areas of dense human habitation (cities)



You do not understand history. of farming, of habitation, of industry, of man.

Of course I do, and some of my best friends have propritary holds on certain things in farming.


And one of my close friends is a bus driver, but i can not claim the knowledge of the city routes that he has.



You do not understand geography. Bushmen.

Geography and bushmen do not answer any of my unanswered questions.


The bushmen of the khalahri,(and other regions) live a simple, almost stoneage existence. Some are partialy nomadic, following the semi domesticated herds of cattle around south africa from grazing ground to grazing ground. This life style seperates them from "civilisation" and gives us a good example of how man might have lived many thousands of years ago. They do not wear shoes, they drink (untreated) milk from the cattle, sometimes mixed with a little blood, bled form the live cow. Average life expectancy is 45 to 50 years. (do not confuse life span, with life expectancy)




You do not understand language. Theory

Well I looked up the definition of the word theory to make sure, and its not looking good for evolutionism.


Language needs to be read in context, theory has dual meanings depending on the context used. A mathematical theory is a gueaa that when proved becomes a fact. The equvelant to a mathematical theory in science is a hypotheses, when that hypotheses is verified, i.e. shown to be true its mathematical equivilent of fact...theory. You are aware that gravity is a scientific theory, and yet here you are, firmly "stuck" to the ground.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
You know I am wondering if we have not found a new evolutionary branch with you. Evolved from a babboon into a baffoon. I must send this thread for peer review.




top topics



 
31
<< 178  179  180    182  183  184 >>

log in

join