Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

Von daniken claims to have found advanced technology in the bible, as did I as well. He also claims that that god was an astronaut, just like the bible and sitchen.

He also said god was a time traveller, and considering how close i am to completion...i may well be god

At the age of 19, von Däniken was caught stealing money, both from an innkeeper and from a camp where he was employed as a youth leader, and was given a four-month suspended sentence. The psychiatrist who examined von Däniken at the time described him as displaying a "tendency to lie"

LMAO Big up to Eric VD

Some also question von Däniken's credibility, as he has also knowingly put forward fraudulent evidence to advance his hypotheses, such as photographs of pottery "depicting UFOs" from an archaeological dig dating back to the biblical era. The PBS television series Nova determined that this was a fraud, and located the potter who made them. Von Däniken said that the deception was justified because some people would only believe his ideas if they saw actual proof

Where is the proof for von Däniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Däniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof

You'll let me know when we can stop offering EVD as proof of anything, yes?

reply to post by idmonster
EVD is proof you can fool some of the people some of the time and some people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

Tooth fits the catorgory of, well say no more.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It might have been my fault not explaiing what I was looking for in more detail. You should seriously give it a go again since you were so good. But I do promise you I did not change the rules just because you thought you found one. I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death, not something that many invokes like a dog.

Seeing as though you told me as a teacher I suck the above I take it is your version of sarcasm.

Your promise means nothing as we have been through this before. Each and every time I offered an answer to your question you reformed it or tried to answer a completely different point. You were shown wrong to reject the house sparrow and not only by me. You still have not addressed the list I gave you when you claimed we had no interaction with any animal from day one that showed you again to be wrong.

You promise you do not change the goalposts and then in the very same paragraph change the goalposts and this without the good manners of addressing the points made in the previous posts.

If I offered the wolf, which I have already done you will then rule that out even though we have had a relationship with it throughout history and that relationship was so close it resulted in the domestic dog.

The house sparrow is not 'A birdie we feed' it is a wild bird that has become reliant on man for nesting sites. We altered our habbits and that almost resulted in the house sparrow disapearing in the UK.

You will blow off both examples with no evidence against even though they answer your question. So what was the point of showing you again, how wrong you are.

reply to post by Barcs

Ok, so you agree with evolution, just not over long periods of time where the changes add up. The only problem with that, is that the fossil record shows exactly that.

Does it? The main problem with the fossil record is that what they are looking at is just an image in stone. It is a fossil. There is nothing left of the creature but an image. They have to assume that the creature in question was a relative or ancestor to another creature.
The fossil records actually show that many organisms have changed very little over millions of years.

There is no separate mechanism for it. If you agree that small changes are possible, then you have to agree that millions of small changes over millions of years could appear to be big change, could it not? Or does it cap off somewhere?

I have already stated that speciation is possible using adaptation. What I do not agree with is one group of animal eventually changing into a differnt group. This also is assumption and speculation. It has never been witnessed and we actually see the opposite in nature. If the changes are too great the animal will die or it will be sterile.

There are more than 2 types of mutation, and they certainly don't only have to do with whether or not they are helpful, harmful or neutral. That part is dealt with by natural selection.

Yes, there are more than two types. I should have been clearer. In the context of adaptation I was refering to them (all mutations) as being a helpful one or one that would hinder. Sorry for clouding the issue.

I disagree with the notion that mutations are voluntary, or a result of the body reacting to the environment. No scientific study has ever suggested that.

I believe you are mistaken Barcs. Of course some mutations are voluntary.
But your mistake it would seem is through no fault of your own. I have been up for around 30 hours and see that once again I was not as clear as I should have been. I did not mean it was a conscious decision (like wishing I were 3" taller).
The body detects changes and performs accordingly in the right situations. This is what I meant by "voluntary" where as those mutations that hinder are more forced by outside influences or to be clearer, it was not the decision of the body to put these mutations in place.
As far as the hypothesis goes, I read, what makes since I accept and reject what doesn't. I do not take assumptions in science lightly there is so much we do not know, so many answers we don't have, why do so many believe that the current scientific "answers" are the only answers?
Ah, I need sleep, will try this again later, maybe I will be more coherent lol.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

Ya know...I'm starting to think that itsthetooth maybe unto something here because I really do feel like I'm observing an alien life force whenever I read one of his replies....oh well keep the hilarity rolling.

So what your saying is you would rather believe in something that has never been witnessed before, and has no substance to support it, over something that has been reported to have been witnessed by over 4 million people.

No....what I'm saying is exactly what I typed. Simple really....

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Are those the ONLY assumptions you disagree with? I personally found the whole idea to be based on assumptions, so I dislike it all.

Translation: I personally have ignored and instantly dismissed every piece of evidence that has been presented, and don't understand evolution, so I dislike it all, even though thousands of pieces of evidence exist, it's all fake and made up on the spot. I also don't know the meaning of theory or objective evidence, I just don't like it.

evolution is dead wrong, because lord bunny said so, i even have the proof for it (which is the holy book of carrots, which i never got the time to started on it yet), but my proof is totally legit as tons of americans accept an alternate version of it as good proof (bible)

reply to post by idmonster

Who do I need to speak to on ATS to get one of those buttons like on facebook, where you click ignore and then all posts from a particular member dont show up when you view a thread?

Dont forget a complaint button to go with it, so that as you lose track of the missing conversation you can place a complalint.

reply to post by idmonster

Whats so special about man? Give us an example of any animal to animal " bond" of the type your refering to so we have a reference.

Ok a good one is anteaters and ants.
They go together pretty well, and you could say they were made for each other.

The giant anteater's diet consists mainly of ground-dwelling ants, although it will occasionally eat termites and army ants. The anteater's acute sense of smell detects the ants. Its long claws are used to get into the nests. It catches the ants with its long, sticky tongue. It gets most of the moisture it needs from its food, which includes fruit and larvae.

Thats awsome on the fruit, its irrelivant unless he depends on it, I would look deeper into the fruit, but we can all safely agree that ants and ant eaters go together. BTW termites are ants ,er in the same family.

reply to post by idmonster

He also said god was a time traveller, and considering how close i am to completion...i may well be god

I have no idea what you mean.

reply to post by colin42

EVD is proof you can fool some of the people some of the time and some people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

Tooth fits the catorgory of, well say no more.

I never said He fooled me much less have I ever heard about his UFO pottery ventures. Either way do ou have some sources about him getting busted or are we just supppose to take your word for it.

reply to post by colin42

Your promise means nothing as we have been through this before. Each and every time I offered an answer to your question you reformed it or tried to answer a completely different point. You were shown wrong to reject the house sparrow and not only by me. You still have not addressed the list I gave you when you claimed we had no interaction with any animal from day one that showed you again to be wrong.

Remind me which list, I'll bet I have. It's not my fault your kicking the ball crooked.

You promise you do not change the goalposts and then in the very same paragraph change the goalposts and this without the good manners of addressing the points made in the previous posts.

If I offered the wolf, which I have already done you will then rule that out even though we have had a relationship with it throughout history and that relationship was so close it resulted in the domestic dog.

Ok and you believe that the wolf would die without our existance? Or we would die without theres?

The house sparrow is not 'A birdie we feed' it is a wild bird that has become reliant on man for nesting sites. We altered our habbits and that almost resulted in the house sparrow disapearing in the UK.

You will blow off both examples with no evidence against even though they answer your question. So what was the point of showing you again, how wrong you are.

The key word here is "become" he became reliant on humans, in other words, he wasn't always reliant. So man did something to cause this. He was a non fitting example for what I'm looking for.

reply to post by Barcs

Translation: I personally have ignored and instantly dismissed every piece of evidence that has been presented, and don't understand evolution, so I dislike it all, even though thousands of pieces of evidence exist, it's all fake and made up on the spot. I also don't know the meaning of theory or objective evidence, I just don't like it.

Well its pretty easy to understand once you realize it wasn't suppose to make any sense. I dunno about the thousands of pieces of evidens being all fake on the spot. What I do know is over 2.5 million fossils and bones and not a single one that links us to apes or monkeys. Don't worry about understanding the word theory, it might all be confusing just because evolutionism has there own version of the word.

What I have learned from links I have been sent to is that none of it is based on anything factualy and most of them admitt outright they are hypothetical and postualted theorys.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Can't sleep. Too much going on in my head tonight. Maybe switching to another subject for awhile will help.
So, on to your post Split.

QUAD....What if I were to tell you that I have seen LIFE that has not EVOLVED from DNA? How would that senario change your concepts on how limited the view is of many on this thread.

I would say without proof it didn't happen.
Unless you mean some kind of scifi mechanical life. And if that is the case, then that would prove that life was Created as we would be the ones who created it.

I probably shouldn't have said what I just did but I grow weary of listening to REDICULOUS statements trying to discredit a FACT that is EVOLUTION that our scientists and Geneticists and Multiple Large Corporations are right now...spending TRILLION OF DOLLARS World Wide in an effort to lock in their ability to own the rights to Geneticly Engineered Crop Seed.

I am starting to get the feeling that split infinity has a split personality by the name of itsthetruth. Sorry but when FACT is based on assumptions and speculation it is not a proven fact, much less a scientific fact.

Can you explain what genetically engineered crop seed has to do with evolution? Don't you read links?

Human Beings are not the only Life in the Universe or Multivese and we sure as HELL or not the only INTELLIGENT LIFE....if you can call Man....intelligent.

It might surprise you, but I actually agree with you............but can you prove we aren't?

DNA and RNA are just one varient of many types of Genetic Coding that has EVOLVED in the Universe and Multiverse.

Proof please.

Understand this...GENESIS....has been achieved in the LAB. The only reason it has not been told to the Masses is that this type of Knowledge has certain adverse effects associated with it as people in general are not ready to accept this PROVEN FACT....that being....that LIFE is a bypoduct of the UNIVERSAL and MULTIVERSAL EVOLUTIONARY STATE of how Matter and Energy as well as how Human Beings are all part of a MUCH LARGER
SYSTEM of LIFE and REALITY.

Understand this ..........IF GENESIS.....has been achieved in the LAB, Then most likly it was CREATED.
Split, if what you're saying was PROVEN FACT, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I could have said this in my first post and tried to use just basic facts of logic and reality but I can see now
that for some of you...NOTHING...no matter how Logical in it's Proof....will let you see the obvious facts and that
even though I have no problem with your belief in a GOD...you obviously are too afraid to take the first steps toward freedom of your MINDS. You are in fact SLAVES to a Mental System of CONTROL that has it's tendrills burried so deep into your conceptions and idealizms of What Is Reality...I fear that I or anyone else will ever have the ability to cut this CANCER out of your SOUL. For that is what CANCER is...it is an ordinary piece of you that by GENETIC DISPOSITION....has mutated something that was once a work part of the body into a Changed Mutated
Version of itself. Unfortunately....the part of you that was been warped is your ability to see REALITY and not be afraid of it but embrace it and USE IT!

All I can honesty say about then rest of your little rant, split, is that your may be ONE OF THE MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN WITH IN THIS THREAD. Take your own advice in these last two paragraphs, it might serve you well.


Going on 38 hours with no sleep (too many books, too many topics and not enough time).
Quad

reply to post by Quadrivium


QUAD....As I have said many times on this board...if no proof is given then...you shouldn't believe it! Never the less...this does not mean it is not true.

As far as having Split Personalities...you have no idea how close to the matter you might have been right. After getting a CT scan years ago...I was found to have a very over developed synaptic connectivity between my right and left hemespheres of my brain as well as an unfamiliar area that connects both hemesphires to the area of the brain responsible for Subconscious activity. For those who do not know...a persons Right side of their brain is responsible for Creativity and the Left hemesphire is responsible for Analitical thought. The Subconscious is like a Computerized Recorder of everything that happens that you do or think or see whether you realize it or not and when data is taken into a persons mind...the subconcious is like a Ref. in a fight between which side of the brain wants to respond to the analized input.

In most people...one side or the other beomes dominant depending on the data and responds or react accordingly...in other people...both sides fight for control and a split personality can occur which ccan be remedied with a procedure of cutting the connections between the two hemesphires to prevent multiple personalities or becoming Schizophrenic. In my case...all are working in tandum and I can control this...but it gives me a way to access my subconcious mind which never forgets anything to a point.

As far as being religious...I am Spiritual...but do not believe in Religion as a rule. Split Infinity

reply to post by Quadrivium

Continued....I post on this board as a way to relieve stress from several jobs. One of these jobs is in Entertainment....another is helping run several family buisnesses....and the third job is of a nature that works in conjuction with the first mentioned as alot of travel is involved.

I was picked for this job out of High School and although I am older now...I still do it from time to time. It is a job that is necessary but has many Demons associated with it in my mind. I do not believe in Heaven or Hell but I do believe in something that I believe we Humans are not evolved enough yet to even get a glimmer of the reality. Split Infinity

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Thats awsome on the fruit, its irrelivant unless he depends on it, I would look deeper into the fruit, but we can all safely agree that ants and ant eaters go together. BTW termites are ants ,er in the same family.

but if termites are evolved from ants...how come we still have ants? Ha Ha got you.

Termites and Ants are not as closley related to each other as you seem to think. Ants are more closely related to wasps and bees, with termites being more closley related to cockroaches.

In fact man and chimp are closer relatives that ant and termite.