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: 198
31
<< 195  196  197    199  200  201 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
That reply shows me all I need to know. I show you that the first 3 diseases in your in your list are also found in other primates and you do not bother to check the way I showed you and then come out with 'can only be 1 - 3%' without any knowledge at all. That is pure ignorance and nothing to be proud of.

You pretend my posts are too far back for you to address. Wilful avoidance and again dishonest. You have no respesct for others and show no self respect at all.

Then in a following post you again say with total ignorance 'we get them sick' and 'they attack us' and ignorantly dismiss the evidence in front of you. Again pure ignorance. Pure denial and very dishonest.

Go in ignorance and stay in denial, remain the fool you have shown yourself to be.


edit on 24-1-2012 by colin42 because: Spelling




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Can you prove anything?????

I don't know that anyone can prove anything at all. So whats the point in anything???? We have things go on right in front of us, and people deny it. We give them the evidence that should be enough to get anyone to think differently, but they don't. In my opinion, to some people you can't prove anything. Doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have, there will always be a way to argue around it. So I ask again, whats the point????????



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 
The shame is that this thread is not about proving anything. It was an attempt to discuss the alternatives to evolution if there are any. The lack of posters doing that shows there must not be. Wasnt helped by the title change but hey that was not my call.

Explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution seems to be something all those that say evolution is wrong run away from.

Surely if they are so convinced science has it wrong they must have an alternative but all we have seen here from them is questions, the same old questions. Show how evolution explains how life was created. Evolution has nothing to say on creation. Evolution is a crock because it denies creation, it does not. Explain the Big Bang and of course the input from total ignorance calling himself itsthetooth.

On a site whose motto is to deny ignorance it seems it is populated by people that wish to bath in it and belive the motto is deny IN ignorance.

So why creationists think attacking evolution will prove them somehow correct when they offer no alternatives beats me.


edit on 24-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm

So why creationists think attacking evolution will prove them somehow correct when they offer no alternatives beats me.



Becuse the mind set is that its either one or the other, and if you cant prove yours right, proving the other wrong automaticaly makes you right.

I understood the original intention of this thread, (at least i think i did) and to me it wasnt prove theory "A" wrong, it was offer an alternative.

To all intents and purposes, tooth has done that. As preposterous as the idea was, he offered an alternative. However I think the point has arrived where we say, "OK, all the evidence (or lack there of) is on the table, let people make up their own minds about which is more reasonable and has the most supporting evidence" and drop it.

To my mind, if tooth isnt just trolling, he is deluded to the point almost of clinical insanity, you are never going to convince him of any model other than the construct of his own mind. He seriously needs some sort of proffesional intervention before things go badly worng for him (mentaly)

so in an effort to kick start what I believe could have been a very good, topic for well educated people. Please PLEASE, if anybody is aware of any alternatives that explain the diversity of life on earth, share them, lets discuss them, lets measure the pros and cons and examine the evidence.

NOTE - DIVERSITY OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET REFERS TO IDIGENEOUS SPECIES AND NOT FOREIGN SPECIES THAT MAY HAVE ARRIVED FROM OTHER PLANET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS OR SELF REPLICATING MOLECULES THAT MAY HAVE SEEDED THIS PLANET IN THE EVENT KNOWN AS PANSPERMIA.

never thought i'd have to add that as a caveat



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
By adding that caveat you have shown that both you and me have learnt something at least


I agree with your post. Tooth has had his go and decided not to grow. His call but this thread is not about him.

The shame of it is if he had built a better case there would be something alternative to debate. He didnt and there wasnt. Entering this type of debate you are never going to change others views but you may increase your own when they are tested against others which is why the title change was such a poor one.

This thread will die here is my guess. Those that debate evolution/creation are too set in their ways and can only repeat the old cycle and refuse to come at the subject from a different angle and out of their comfort zone.

The first demand is for evolution to show proof and then creationism to shoot down that evidence and woe betide anyone that tries to shake it up a bit but at least I tried.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
By adding that caveat you have shown that both you and me have learnt something at least


I agree with your post. Tooth has had his go and decided not to grow. His call but this thread is not about him.

The shame of it is if he had built a better case there would be something alternative to debate. He didnt and there wasnt. Entering this type of debate you are never going to change others views but you may increase your own when they are tested against others which is why the title change was such a poor one.

This thread will die here is my guess. Those that debate evolution/creation are too set in their ways and can only repeat the old cycle and refuse to come at the subject from a different angle and out of their comfort zone.

The first demand is for evolution to show proof and then creationism to shoot down that evidence and woe betide anyone that tries to shake it up a bit but at least I tried.


I'm still in
.

I can't recall how many threads I or others have posted the statement "evolution is not exclusive of an intelligent design / intervention or creation, whatever that maybe".

Some people are just obtuse or simply have another agenda. Ignore them and let the discussion flourish.....just don't scratch the itchy trolls



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Then in a following post you again say with total ignorance 'we get them sick' and 'they attack us' and ignorantly dismiss the evidence in front of you. Again pure ignorance. Pure denial and very dishonest.
Ya you must have ignored my link that proves that.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





That reply shows me all I need to know. I show you that the first 3 diseases in your in your list are also found in other primates and you do not bother to check the way I showed you and then come out with 'can only be 1 - 3%' without any knowledge at all. That is pure ignorance and nothing to be proud of.
You know I have been very forthcoming with direction, and redundant proven theory, that tells us we aren't from here.

I don't know where you get off saying that I'm being dishonest, Your the only one here that hasn't been honest. You don't always answer my questions, and yours I sometimes cant answer because they are worded funny. Then when I ask you to refraise them you claim I'm being dishonest

Lets just get one thing straight, your the one that believes in hypothetical and postulated theorys, not me, so if any one is being dishonest here it's you.

I'm the one that believs in a theory that is redundantly backed up by documentation, while evolutionists are scavanging over 2.5 million fossils and bones to come up with a missing link. Let me break some bad news to you, it shouldn't take 150 years to prove evolutionism, it should have been immediate, and its still not proven. If you want to believe in fairy tales, don't blame me and come down on me just because I miss some of your questions.

I have provided clear paths that prove we are not from here. As an example, providing so many names of disease and sickness humans get, that they got removed by an admin for violation. But according to you we don't get sick that much. We still have to have intervention from birth, or become short lived. Which you also deny. Just because the bushman lives a hearty 30 years is also not an excuse either. We get sick so much that we have to have vaccines from making each other sick. Did you not every wonder why humans are such great carriers of sickness? It's because we are constantly under attack, again, we aren't from here.

I present these and you have the audacity to claim animals and plants get just as sick, are you mental. That has got to be the biggest load of suckatash I have ever heard. I checked out a website on tree and plant diseases and sickness and couldn't produce more than 50. Meanwhile humans are sitting in the tens of thousands.

Since you seem to be on such a blind high horse, I would suggest you no longer take vaccines and help from the medical profession to see how far you get. Your years will be numbered and you would most likely die from not one, but a combination of things working together against you.

Are you Amish or meninight?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Lol chickens from dinosaurs? That's rich.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...
This really is a good read, rather short as well.
There is also new(er) evidence (from a scientist at Berkeley, I believe) that shows the theropod connection is false because of the fixed femur bone birds have. No dinosaurs have a fixed femur, it is exclusive to birds. Without it they would puncture the air sack in their chest cavity.
Quad
edit on 24-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: Fixed link


This is old junk science.
Birds actually do have mobile femurs, are you suggesting an ostrich is not a bird or are you implying that bone structures cannot change and evolve?

Besides thigh position in birds isn’t critical to their lung function, and some dinosaurs had a respiratory system similar to birds.


Scientists have known dinosaurs used the pumplike apparatus to breathe, but the new find cements the connection between dinosaur and avian evolution, said Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "This leaves little discussion that air sacs existed and that meat-eaters really do have lung structures that resemble birds," Sereno said.

Link



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You're forgetting a few crucial things. First off, as coliin pointed out, many of the diseases found in humans are also found in other primates. Next, humans have a higher survival rate if they do contract a disease. In the wild if you contract a disease you're most likely going to die. We also have a lower infant mortality rate. Both of these two facts are due to our medical technology. While it does allow for us to live longer lives it does have an added drawback. Those people with weaker immune systems are able to survive and as a result they pass on their weak immune systems. Whereas in the wild the only individuals passing on their genes are the ones with strong immune systems who don't get sick. If we stopped using medicine, in a few generations we would see a decline in the number of diseases humans contract. However, we wouldn't be able to live as long. No matter what a person does as they get older their immune system will weaken. So as people would get older the likelihood of developing a disease would increase and without the benefit with medicine the likelihood of death would be high. Not to mention that our population would be smaller as more individuals would die during childbirth.

If anything your example proves evolution. Humans could live like the animals in the wild and we would see fewer diseases, but we would also see average lifespans comparable to creatures of the wild. Medical technology has allowed those to live that would normally die. And while every individual deserves a chance at life it has given weaker individuals the opportunity to procreate and as a result their genes have been passed on and allowed to manifest in humanity as a whole.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





This is old junk science.
Birds actually do have mobile femurs, are you suggesting an ostrich is not a bird or are you implying that bone structures cannot change and evolve?

Besides thigh position in birds isn’t critical to their lung function, and some dinosaurs had a respiratory system similar to birds.
You have to be kidding me.
Anyone with any intelligence knows that birds were no related to dinosaurs. Where are the species of transgression, where is the proof, what happened to all the bones.
Why is it we have retreived over 2.5 million bones and fossils in 150 years, and still have NOT A SINGLE ONE that proves a connection to any other species.
Don't you think the numbers, and years, and now the odds are slightly stacked against you believing in this MOJO.
One thing is for sure, Snake oil is possible, with the right process. Give it up man, Chickensour or dinochick never existed.

There is a hell of a lot of difference between chickens and dinosaurs, which would require a hell of a lot of species of trangsgression. Why is it out of 5 million species we have never found a single species that ties us to another, why is it after 2.5 million bones and fossils we still have nothing that connects anything, why is it after 150 years they are actually still looking for some? It's called faith, and evolutionism is one of the strongest faiths right next to religion. Lucky you.

Don't reply back to me, I don't want to buy any snake oil.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





You're forgetting a few crucial things. First off, as coliin pointed out, many of the diseases found in humans are also found in other primates. Next, humans have a higher survival rate if they do contract a disease. In the wild if you contract a disease you're most likely going to die. We also have a lower infant mortality rate. Both of these two facts are due to our medical technology. While it does allow for us to live longer lives it does have an added drawback. Those people with weaker immune systems are able to survive and as a result they pass on their weak immune systems. Whereas in the wild the only individuals passing on their genes are the ones with strong immune systems who don't get sick. If we stopped using medicine, in a few generations we would see a decline in the number of diseases humans contract. However, we wouldn't be able to live as long. No matter what a person does as they get older their immune system will weaken. So as people would get older the likelihood of developing a disease would increase and without the benefit with medicine the likelihood of death would be high. Not to mention that our population would be smaller as more individuals would die during childbirth.

If anything your example proves evolution. Humans could live like the animals in the wild and we would see fewer diseases, but we would also see average lifespans comparable to creatures of the wild. Medical technology has allowed those to live that would normally die. And while every individual deserves a chance at life it has given weaker individuals the opportunity to procreate and as a result their genes have been passed on and allowed to manifest in humanity as a whole.


Your only correct on the things that don't end up killing us. We can't live on to face another challenge if we are dead. It sounds more like your saying that all that medical intervention has done is take away the suffering, without any other results. I strongly dissagree.

I'm a good example, I was suppose to die at the age of 7, with one collasped lung. Now I'm middle aged and still ticking. But it hasn't been easy for me. A new experimental drug, I think is what saved me. Before we had primatine mist and things like that. Very expensive and untested, my mother took a chance and got the pills for me. I think its what saved me. I still have the puncuture mark below my nipple where they tried to inflate my lung, I was told I would die.
On the other hand I don't always think doctors always know what they are doing either, so there is that too. It could be possible I would have never died. Aside, there are things we get vaccinated for that would probably take our lives early on. And if it didn't, we would wish it had.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


As you have been shown time and again there are numerous examples of transitional fossils. In fact all 2.5 million of the fossils you keep mentioning are transitional. And in fact it's quite amazing we have found that many. The process for fossilization requires very specific circumstances. Not every bone is going to fossilize. If you read the literature you'll often come across the phrase that only one in a million animals will fossilize. Of course this is just a figure of speech to show that the odds of fossilization are very low. It's also worth pointing out that the areas with the least amount of life, such as deserts, have the highest chance of an animal fossilizing. At the same time areas with the highest amount of life, such as jungles, tend to have the lowest chance of an animal fossilizing. Throw in the fact that fossils can erode, melt, etc. just like normal rocks. Despite all of this the fossil record is quite extensive and allows us to look back millions of years to see our own ancestors.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


LOL I was not replying you, this stuff is obviously way over your head.
Now go drink your kool-aid and go back to sleep.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The problem I think you're running into is that you're assuming that without medical intervention everyone would contract these childhood illnesses. This isn't true. Sure, a large number of our population would die in infancy. But this is no different than any other species. Those that survived would be the ones that possess a natural immunity to the disease. They in turn will pass that immunity on to their children and eventually the disease would be wiped out from humanity. It's similar to the same thing we are seeing with bacteria and antibiotics. The antibiotics are wiping out most of the bacteria but those that survive has a natural defense against the antibiotics. It is then these bacteria that get to reproduce and pass on their defense. This process then continues until the point where we're at today where we are starting to see bacteria strains that are immune to all forms of antibiotics.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





As you have been shown time and again there are numerous examples of transitional fossils. In fact all 2.5 million of the fossils you keep mentioning are transitional.
Ok no one has shown me time and time again, as nice as that sounds, I'm waiting to hear about one single case that proves evolution. If evolution had been proven 2.5 million bones ago, then why are you and I having this conversation? Everything I went over made it clear that these finds do not prove any connection to two species. Are you sure your not just dreaming this up because hypothetical and postulated theorys don't count.




And in fact it's quite amazing we have found that many. The process for fossilization requires very specific circumstances. Not every bone is going to fossilize. If you read the literature you'll often come across the phrase that only one in a million animals will fossilize. Of course this is just a figure of speech to show that the odds of fossilization are very low. It's also worth pointing out that the areas with the least amount of life, such as deserts, have the highest chance of an animal fossilizing. At the same time areas with the highest amount of life, such as jungles, tend to have the lowest chance of an animal fossilizing. Throw in the fact that fossils can erode, melt, etc. just like normal rocks. Despite all of this the fossil record is quite extensive and allows us to look back millions of years to see our own ancestors.
What you mean is allow us to look back and produce theorys on evolution.

Even reflecting back on links I was given a long time ago, there were never any that proved any connection between species.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





LOL I was not replying you, this stuff is obviously way over your head.
Now go drink your kool-aid and go back to sleep.
Imagination is never above me.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The problem I think you're running into is that you're assuming that without medical intervention everyone would contract these childhood illnesses. This isn't true. Sure, a large number of our population would die in infancy. But this is no different than any other species. Those that survived would be the ones that possess a natural immunity to the disease. They in turn will pass that immunity on to their children and eventually the disease would be wiped out from humanity. It's similar to the same thing we are seeing with bacteria and antibiotics. The antibiotics are wiping out most of the bacteria but those that survive has a natural defense against the antibiotics. It is then these bacteria that get to reproduce and pass on their defense. This process then continues until the point where we're at today where we are starting to see bacteria strains that are immune to all forms of antibiotics.
Your assuming we would win in the end, through attrition, and I don't buy it. There is nothing that can prove that. Granted viruses are becoming immune to our vaccines, but that doesn't mean we could live thorugh the war.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Before I post the links again let me ask one question. What exactly would you need to see in a fossil to convince you that it was the ancestor of another fossil?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Before I post the links again let me ask one question. What exactly would you need to see in a fossil to convince you that it was the ancestor of another fossil?


Oh I'm easy, right now I'm like a dog starving for a scoobie snack.
It must have traits of two known species proving transgression. Thats all, that simple. Crocoduck wont work btw.




top topics



 
31
<< 195  196  197    199  200  201 >>

log in

join