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: 185
31
<< 182  183  184    186  187  188 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Remind me which list, I'll bet I have. It's not my fault your kicking the ball crooked.
What you need reminding again? I have quoted this list at least twice already. I suggest you learn how to navigate through this thread and do your own leg work for a change. Are you keeping score of how many hoops you succeded in making people jump through, hoops of your construction?


Ok and you believe that the wolf would die without our existance? Or we would die without theres?
Ok that promise you made was also not lived up too. You asked:


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.
Now you maintain that it is whether the wolf or we would die without the others existance. So like everything else you say. Even your word that you will not change the goalposts cannot be trusted at all.

You rule out dogs because, WHY? You maintain a dog remains a dog no matter how we selectively breed them. I have news for you. A dog remains a WOLF no matter how we select the qualities that we value.

So in answer to your question 'I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death' I give you the WOLF.

Your insistance that this does not include dogs has no value as even you maintain that a wolf is always a wolf. The amount of jobs we have selected those wolves for shows we have a natural bond from birth to death and in some cases we would not survive without them and they would not survive without us.

The house sparrow has already shown it is dependant on man for its nesting sites and would not survive without us.

So what is your response now. Do you change your question again? Do you blow off my answer with more unrelated nonsense or just ignore it. I very much doubt you will address my reply honestly


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.
No the key word here is 'DUMB'. We became reliant on walking upright, we wasnt always. Modern society has become reliant on electricity, it wasnt always. The house sparrow was not always a house sparrow and the evidence of that has also been explained to you. As always though your argument never holds any water and is from a point of purposeful ignorance.






edit on 17-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2012 by colin42 because: gramma




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What you need reminding again? I have quoted this list at least twice already. I suggest you learn how to navigate through this thread and do your own leg work for a change. Are you keeping score of how many hoops you succeded in making people jump through, hoops of your construction?


Those are things you should have addressed immediatly so that I could follow them up.




Now you maintain that it is whether the wolf or we would die without the others existance. So like everything else you say. Even your word that you will not change the goalposts cannot be trusted at all.
I assure you I'm not moving the goal post. Dying might be an extreme but it does get the point across.




You rule out dogs because, WHY? You maintain a dog remains a dog no matter how we selectively breed them. I have news for you. A dog remains a WOLF no matter how we select the qualities that we value.


It doesn't matter, wolfs are dogs, there is no gametic isolation between them.




So in answer to your question 'I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death' I give you the WOLF.


Ok lets hold the goal post here a second. What exactly do we depend on each other for.




So in answer to your question 'I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death' I give you the WOLF.


WTF. You did not just say that. They would die without us and we would die without them ???? What movie are you watching?




The house sparrow has already shown it is dependant on man for its nesting sites and would not survive without us.


So thats fine, he found a use for man, that wasn't the question. I didn't want to know how many things found a use for man there are hundreds. I'm looking for ones that either had it from birth or would die without us.




No the key word here is 'DUMB'. We became reliant on walking upright, we wasnt always. Modern society has become reliant on electricity, it wasnt always. The house sparrow was not always a house sparrow and the evidence of that has also been explained to you. As always though your argument never holds any water and is from a point of purposeful ignorance.


Either way, you allready admitted he bacame dependant, not that he always was. I missed the other part, are you trying to say we had a realtionship with him before we walked straight up.?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 




So in answer to your question 'I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death' I give you the WOLF.


WTF. You did not just say that. They would die without us and we would die without them ???? What movie are you watching?


My dog would definately die without me, she doesnt know how to use the tin opener.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Those are things you should have addressed immediatly so that I could follow them up.
Still avoiding the difficult questions are you? No you should have addressed the answers I gave you immediately, I already had yours. That is the way a debate works. You did not but this forum like all others offers the function to go back. So your cowering away from the question is just more of your typically dishonest behaviour.


I assure you I'm not moving the goal post. Dying might be an extreme but it does get the point across.
Your actions show your asurances mean absolutely nothing.


Ok lets hold the goal post here a second. What exactly do we depend on each other for.
No it is not a case of holding the goal post here just so you can cherry pick a line from my reply and ask another question (moving the goal post). It is now your turn to respond to my reply, my whole reply.


WTF. You did not just say that. They would die without us and we would die without them ???? What movie are you watching?
I quoted what you wrote you foolish person. How old do you say you are. A thirteen year old townie is how you come across.

If you are quoting me then use my words


and in some cases we would not survive without them and they would not survive without us
Which is not what you made out I said, again you being dishonest. Now in the context I wrote that line show me that I am wrong.


So thats fine, he found a use for man, that wasn't the question. I didn't want to know how many things found a use for man there are hundreds. I'm looking for ones that either had it from birth or would die without us.
Yes so it includes the house sparrow. You even admit as much in the reply from you above.


Either way, you allready admitted he bacame dependant, not that he always was. I missed the other part, are you trying to say we had a realtionship with him before we walked straight up.?
What?? What?? How dumb are you. Go back and read it again. If this is beyond you, if you cannot understand the point being made I suggest your mental capacity would be stretched when trying to understand an episode of play school.

Again I am giving you the benifit of doubt here and taking it this is more avoidance of addressing the point made which in itself is pathetic.

So are you ever intending to give an answer or do you intend to play this childish game page after page?


edit on 17-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2012 by colin42 because: clarity

edit on 17-1-2012 by colin42 because: clarity 2



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I'm not going to get into all this. ...Would be a lot of typing.. But! I'm a Christian and I'm a minister. I am (I'm not being full of myself when I say this) also an expert in Biblical celestial and terrestrial life.

I support Evolution! The Earth was not created in 6 days. ....Thats just ignorance! I have even taught this from the Pull pit. That day I realized how many Ignorant people we had in the church! Lol!

The Bible even talks about Evolution. Its just people do not study the Bible. If they did then they would realize the earth was not created in 6 days. There are actually a lot of people like me who has this understanding.

I am what you would say believe in "Intelligent Design." We were created by them to look like them. Jesus was in the Old Testament of the Bible under the name of "Secret" and the name "Captain of the Host!" This pre-incarnet Jesus made Adam. Other celestial life was there during creation as well. This is in the book of Job about them being there. Angel just means "messenger" and a lot of people try to use the word "Angel" to describe all celestial life. If a celestial being does not deliver a message then it is not an angel. Can't be a pizza boy if you don't deliver pizza. The Bible is my favorite Alien/UFO book!

Anyway.. There are some thoughts! I didn't mean to type this much.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by defconzero
 


A refreshing and open minded response from a member of the clergy.

I am an athiest, however I would like to share with you a small part of the journey that led me to being so, and would also be be absolutly on topic of the original title of this thread.

Many, many years ago (30+ at least) I came to the conclusion that the bible could not be literaly right. Even at the tender age of [UNDISCLOSED] I understood a fair amount about evolution and geological time scales to realise that the earth had been here for many millions of years. (later edited to billions)

Although, having been raised as a christian, (CofE for those who care about such things) I still had a strong belief in a god, and that Jesus was his son come to absolve us of our sins as long as we had faith in him as our saviour.

All well and good and as it should be you might think. There comes a point in ones life ( well, it did in mine anyway) where you need to ask yourself "what do I truly believe, and what do I believe because I've been told to believe it?". And when I looked deep inside myself, I came to the realisation that I didnt actualy believe in god, not in the same way that I believe that, even though I cant see it, or without moving from my current position prove its there, that my bath is still in the bathroom.. I absolutly believe, to weak, I KNOW that my bath is in the bathroom...I understand what belief is. Could I conjour up the same level of belief in a god? No.

So I looked for other explanations.

What I came up with, and what I adhered to for many years related to genesis but added my own little spin to it.

To paraphrase, in genesis it say that god created man in his image. I altered this to god created man with the ability to obtain his image.

This allows god to place single cell onto this earth, and provide all that is necessary for that single cell to evolve into man, and to continue to evovle into..... (surely any environment able to provde everything an evolving cell required would be a veritable eden)

There are numerous reasons why i no longer have a requirement for a god. But i do believe, that if there were a god, this is how he did it, and it allows for everything else we now know about geological timescales and evolution.
edit on 17-1-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2012 by idmonster because: needed emphasis

edit on 17-1-2012 by idmonster because: atroshus spelling



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Personally, I'm agnostic toward a universal creator, but open minded to the idea. I think the best possible way to explain the origin of life on earth is that it arrived via comet. Comets that contain the same type of water as our ocean have been recently documented, and there's a very good chance that a large portion of our ocean came from comets impacting the earth at various times. Perhaps the extreme conditions within a comet are what make abiogenesis possible, or it could be something completely different altogether. Comets are the spice for the recipe of life, perhaps. I also believe that aliens did indeed visit the earth in the ancient past, and possibly tweaked our DNA, but there's no question at all that humans have evolved on the earth, tweaked DNA or not. Just throwing that idea out there, since that's mainly what this thread is about now.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I am quite open to the possibilities of panspermia as a possible explanation as to the origin of life on this planet, however it fails to offer an explanation as to how that life came to be. ( being a big scifi nut I am also realy attracted to the idea as it offers the possibilitie of the same dna ending up elsewhere in the universe)

I have posted this link before on another "origin" thread,

www.livescience.com...

It offers other alternatives to the origins of self replicating molecules.

I quite like page 6, "community clay" but my gut says that if we ever nail it, it will probably be page 3, "RNA World"

Anyway, enjoy the article.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
To Defconzero as well.

Yes I gave Defon a star as he shows you can hold evolution to be true and have a creator, the two are not exclusive.

I have never been religious and when told I must put something in a census I became a jedi. My take on the bible was yes looking at it with a modern eye you can compare some things with what we know now and it holds up, to a point. That is the genius of the bible. The reader can interpret pretty much what they want but.

en.wikipedia.org...

The first recorded explanation and I doubt the first to think it came from Plotinus (205). As I have wrote before from the little I can find on emanation it could be looked at as a philosophers concept of evolution, to me anyhow. It does show Darwin was certainly not the first to realise the connection of species or at least to think about it. People were not stupid in the ancient world and their brain and cognative abilities were at least as good as our own.

Many of the religious texts were also written by those with brains originally and to me its those without them who put belief first second third and last that has made over time any truth it contained into a tool of control of the masses for the purpose of the ruling elite. Religion was never meant to forbid discovery. No belief system should and any that do are false.

I deny any one, anything or belief that tries to deny me the right to make my own choices when I can. I accept nothing without my own scrutiny, judgment and even then It has to fit with what I know and the world I live in.

I try to remain open to other concepts but would add one person on this thread has tested that to breaking point and who has turned what could have been an interesting debate into a comedy routine.




edit on 17-1-2012 by colin42 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I put padawan just to confuse them.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Beware young one, flirting with the darkside you are.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Still avoiding the difficult questions are you? No you should have addressed the answers I gave you immediately, I already had yours. That is the way a debate works. You did not but this forum like all others offers the function to go back. So your cowering away from the question is just more of your typically dishonest behaviour.
Well no, I just have no idea where or how far back to look.




Your actions show your asurances mean absolutely nothing.


If I didn't know anybetter it sounds like you set it up to end up looking like your profiling me. There is really no point in telling me for 20 pages to answer unanswered questions when I have no idea what they are.




No it is not a case of holding the goal post here just so you can cherry pick a line from my reply and ask another question (moving the goal post). It is now your turn to respond to my reply, my whole reply.
Ok then give me a reply and I'll respond.




I quoted what you wrote you foolish person. How old do you say you are. A thirteen year old townie is how you come across.

If you are quoting me then use my words


Now I'm going to profile you because your stereotyping me, and you must not be from the states because I have no idea what the hell a townie is.




Which is not what you made out I said, again you being dishonest. Now in the context I wrote that line show me that I am wrong.
I might of changes sometimes in that. Unless you meant period, that they would die. I assumed you did a typo. How in the hell could all wolfs have died without our intervention?




Yes so it includes the house sparrow. You even admit as much in the reply from you above.


Ok so now your trying to tell me he has always been dependant on us, why are you lying, you had first told me that he had become dependant on us. So which is it, has he always been or became.




What?? What?? How dumb are you. Go back and read it again. If this is beyond you, if you cannot understand the point being made I suggest your mental capacity would be stretched when trying to understand an episode of play school.

Again I am giving you the benifit of doubt here and taking it this is more avoidance of addressing the point made which in itself is pathetic.

So are you ever intending to give an answer or do you intend to play this childish game page after page?
Not at all, your obviously avoiding the important grid. Which is understandable since you either don't understand the questions, or are just playing tag to avoid the questions all together. I think its the latter.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I think we have however made some progress.
In the last dozen pages or so, we have established that according to colin42, apes are human.
Sanitation for drinking water is not a problem worth addressing.
Flagellum is a subject to totally ignore.
Answer questions intentionally going out of bounds of the question.
Profile others when your not able to get a leg up.
Rather than opening your eyes to the truth, nestle yourself deeper in your myth.
Mocking others by altering there account name.
Repeatly asking me to answer things that I answered a long time ago.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think we have however made some progress.
In the last dozen pages or so, we have established that according to colin42, apes are human.
Sanitation for drinking water is not a problem worth addressing.
Flagellum is a subject to totally ignore.
Answer questions intentionally going out of bounds of the question.
Profile others when your not able to get a leg up.
Rather than opening your eyes to the truth, nestle yourself deeper in your myth.
Mocking others by altering there account name.
Repeatly asking me to answer things that I answered a long time ago.




itsthespooth, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well no, I just have no idea where or how far back to look.
Yes and each page of childish excuses you make means you will have to go back further. I suggest you start now.


If I didn't know anybetter it sounds like you set it up to end up looking like your profiling me. There is really no point in telling me for 20 pages to answer unanswered questions when I have no idea what they are.
You maintain you are a clever person. If I have been reminding you for 20 pages to answer unanswered questions try going back 21 pages. What is it with this profiling nonsense. You mate are profiling yourself. You have shown yourself to be dishonest, decietful, poorly educated and purposely ignorant. Your tantrums when cornered show you are around 13 or at least that is your mental age. You volunteered all that.


Ok then give me a reply and I'll respond.
Great example of poorly educated. You asked a question and I answered it. Good manners alone says you address my answer. You have chosen again to cheery pick a line out of context and ask another question. So in case you still do not understand. YOUR TURN TO ANSWER. Only after that do you get the chance to ask.


Now I'm going to profile you because your stereotyping me, and you must not be from the states because I have no idea what the hell a townie is.
How pathetically imature. You can make the huge foundationless leap to maintain we dont fit because we have hands but cannot deduce what a townie is. How weak is that?


I might of changes sometimes in that. Unless you meant period, that they would die. I assumed you did a typo. How in the hell could all wolfs have died without our intervention?
Try reading what is written and not what you want to see so that you can win a point. You have been caught out doing this many times, too many times.


Ok so now your trying to tell me he has always been dependant on us, why are you lying, you had first told me that he had become dependant on us. So which is it, has he always been or became.
You was told and shown that the house sparrow evolved from the tree sparrow and is reliant on mans buildings for nesting sites, hence the common name House Sparrow. You chose to ignore this even though it was backed up with links. So why are you playing dumb? Are you playing dumb or is it real? You are certainly lying if you maintain to be uninformed about the house sparrow. PLEASE THINK ABOUT YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS WHILST AT SCHOOL TODAY.


Not at all, your obviously avoiding the important grid. Which is understandable since you either don't understand the questions, or are just playing tag to avoid the questions all together. I think its the latter.
Oh please dont tell me that you think, there is no evidence for it.


You: 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.

My reply: No the key word here is 'DUMB'. We became reliant on walking upright, we wasnt always. Modern society has become reliant on electricity, it wasnt always. The house sparrow was not always a house sparrow and the evidence of that has also been explained to you. As always though your argument never holds any water and is from a point of purposeful ignorance.

Your Dumb Reply: Either way, you allready admitted he bacame dependant, not that he always was. I missed the other part, are you trying to say we had a realtionship with him before we walked straight up.?

My Response: What?? What?? How dumb are you. Go back and read it again. If this is beyond you, if you cannot understand the point being made I suggest your mental capacity would be stretched when trying to understand an episode of play school.

Now if you cannot read and understand the above I suggest two things. 1. Go to spec savers. 2. Get an education.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think we have however made some progress.
In the last dozen pages or so, we have established that according to colin42, apes are human.
Sanitation for drinking water is not a problem worth addressing.
Flagellum is a subject to totally ignore.
Answer questions intentionally going out of bounds of the question.
Profile others when your not able to get a leg up.
Rather than opening your eyes to the truth, nestle yourself deeper in your myth.
Mocking others by altering there account name.
Repeatly asking me to answer things that I answered a long time ago.

That is your point of view. Mine is there has been no progress since you joined this thread at all.

Very early on you showed yourself to be dishonest and thankyou for the evidence of that provided by you and quoted above. You have maintained your dishonesty throughout your time in this thread and have yet to answer any question if the result would mean your silly fantasy would be shown false.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think we have however made some progress.
In the last dozen pages or so, we have established that according to colin42, apes are human.
Sanitation for drinking water is not a problem worth addressing.
Flagellum is a subject to totally ignore.
Answer questions intentionally going out of bounds of the question.
Profile others when your not able to get a leg up.
Rather than opening your eyes to the truth, nestle yourself deeper in your myth.
Mocking others by altering there account name.
Repeatly asking me to answer things that I answered a long time ago.




itsthespooth, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.
Warned you of this I did. Great danger in the training of this young padawan there was. The pull of the dark side is strong I said. The future is no longer clear, a disturbance in the force there is.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think we have however made some progress.
In the last dozen pages or so, we have established that according to colin42, apes are human.
Sanitation for drinking water is not a problem worth addressing.
Flagellum is a subject to totally ignore.
Answer questions intentionally going out of bounds of the question.
Profile others when your not able to get a leg up.
Rather than opening your eyes to the truth, nestle yourself deeper in your myth.
Mocking others by altering there account name.
Repeatly asking me to answer things that I answered a long time ago.




itsthespooth, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.
Warned you of this I did. Great danger in the training of this young padawan there was. The pull of the dark side is strong I said. The future is no longer clear, a disturbance in the force there is.


Maybe all life really IS created by midichlorians...

Just thought I'd throw that out there.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Bunny ,
Incase you have forgotten,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Still waiting to hear from you.
No football today
.
This is the third maybe fourth time that I have asked.
Quad



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


This very post is what I meant by "moving the goal post".
First you say he never said it.
I show that he did.....
And you move the goal post to exclude private conversation.
The fact is, he did say it and thought about it. You were wrong and can not admit it.
Childish.
Look at what Mr. XYZ said. By his definition on page 157 or 158.
I proved by his own definition that evolution was wrong.
Did I think that I actually proved the entire theory wrong?
Of course not.
I did, however, prove it wrong by the definition that was given by XYZ.
Did he say good job and we have a good laugh over it?
No he moved the goal post and attacked. Kinda like your doing.
Childish
It would probably surprise you the amount of information the theory of evolution has sucked into itself that I actually do agree with.
I never claimed to be a young earther. I do however see similarities in the Creation story and what science has to say on the matter.
Go back and read the back and forth between colin and I.
It makes since using biology that plants were the first complex life. Then life in the oceans and birds (yes birds, look back to our discussion), then life on land. Lastly humans.
This is also the order of life in the Creation story.
You don't find the fact that this order was written down more than 2500 years ago just alittle curious?
In a earlier post you chided me about assuming something about your "intellectual beliefs" .
I would appreciate it if you would follow your own advice.
Quad


Okay, this was like ages ago and because this whole thread has devolved into total nonsense, I'm giving you a cursory answer.


This very post is what I meant by "moving the goal post".
First you say he never said it.
I show that he did.....
And you move the goal post to exclude private conversation.
The fact is, he did say it and thought about it. You were wrong and can not admit it.


What are you talking about here? Who said what?


I never claimed to be a young earther. I do however see similarities in the Creation story and what science has to say on the matter.


1) Which creation story? There are thousands of them, and there are two in the Bible itself...which was based on much older sources. It's not even original, for heaven's sakes. How can you claim it's accurate?

2) What similarities? Please provide Biblical quotes to back up your assertions.


You don't find the fact that this order was written down more than 2500 years ago just alittle curious?


No, why should it be? Every religion has its creation story. There's nothing unusual in that. It was their way of explaining the world around them, much as we do today. Only we have different ways of explaining it while some of you are still stuck in a 3000+ year old mindset.

The Middle Ages are over, Quad. Come back to the good side.

And why should the fact that it was written 2500 years ago have any bearing? That an appeal to tradition, that the old is better than the new. It isn't.

Keep this in mind, too: disproving evolution (which you're not going to do) doesn't make creationism true. It's as simple as that.


In a earlier post you chided me about assuming something about your "intellectual beliefs" .
I would appreciate it if you would follow your own advice.


I am. My intellectual beliefs tell me that the Bible and all religion is just nothing but superstition and that God, while possible, isn't required for the beginnings of life. Complexity doesn't equal design.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 182  183  184    186  187  188 >>

log in

join