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: 210
31
<< 207  208  209    211  212  213 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I see you are still deep in your delusion that you have somehow scared everyone away. You had flagellum explained to you pages back and several ways including links and you decided to remain ignorant as usual.

No one has run away, everyone has turned away which is very different because to be honest you are a complete waste of bandwidth.

This latest post is an attempt to get people posting to you again. You must be feeling lonely. In part it has worked but with me only this one time.

You have shown you wish to wallow in ignorance but I am afraid you'll have to do it alone.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I see you are still deep in your delusion that you have somehow scared everyone away. You had flagellum explained to you pages back and several ways including links and you decided to remain ignorant as usual.
What are you talking about, wow, calling me delusional. No one has ever explained flagellum. It's not explainable by evolutionists.

What are you going to say, the motor evolved?




No one has run away, everyone has turned away which is very different because to be honest you are a complete waste of bandwidth.

This latest post is an attempt to get people posting to you again. You must be feeling lonely. In part it has worked but with me only this one time.

You have shown you wish to wallow in ignorance but I am afraid you'll have to do it alone.
The only ignorance again is no one being able to explain flagellum.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





The only ignorance again is no one being able to explain flagellum.


Not sure why you bring up the flagellum. But if you're implying that scientists can't explain something in regards to it, and that's somehow proof of some bat# crazy alien intervention or ID hypothesis, then you're yet again presenting a prime example of an argument from ignorance


By the way, Google is your friend: LINK

I know you don't really care about facts or real research...but still...at least make a bit of an effort

edit on 3-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Not sure why you bring up the flagellum. But if you're implying that scientists can't explain something in regards to it, and that's somehow proof of some bat# crazy alien intervention or ID hypothesis, then you're yet again presenting a prime example of an argument from ignorance

By the way, Google is your friend: LINK

I know you don't really care about facts or real research...but still...at least make a bit of an effort
Sure because you think motors can evolve. Please people give it up.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Sure because you think motors can evolve. Please people give it up.


Because it did evolve.

Read this article about the development:

biologos.org...

If you halt the protein production of any step, then it will stop there and the bacteria will still function, just with one less part.

Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it had to be thought up by somebody. Repeated additions over time can increase complexity by a lot.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

And you trot out the "profiling" deflection once again. You get things wrong, I point it out, and I'm the bad guy. Try having some self-awareness and sense of accountability. Face it, you have a track record of misinterpreting artistic representations as being literal. It's no wonder you think the Bible is a scientific reference book. You saw a computer animation of DNA that happened to have the color blue assigned to the backbone of the polymer and then spent over 100 pages of another thread arguing that DNA had a "blue laminate". Later, you admitted that you must have been wrong about this. Now you've taken an artist's rendition of the structure of a flagellum and are claiming that it must have been designed based on a pretty picture. Not on a microscopic image, not a molecular analysis of the parts that go into it, but based on a pretty picture that someone else drew. Wonder how many pages of arguing it'll take you to figure out that you're wrong about this as well.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Not sure why you bring up the flagellum. But if you're implying that scientists can't explain something in regards to it, and that's somehow proof of some bat# crazy alien intervention or ID hypothesis, then you're yet again presenting a prime example of an argument from ignorance

By the way, Google is your friend: LINK

I know you don't really care about facts or real research...but still...at least make a bit of an effort
Sure because you think motors can evolve. Please people give it up.


All you have to do is actually do some proper research for once. But once again, you simply ignore the link proving you wrong and continue to spread your hogwash.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





And you trot out the "profiling" deflection once again. You get things wrong, I point it out, and I'm the bad guy. Try having some self-awareness and sense of accountability. Face it, you have a track record of misinterpreting artistic representations as being literal. It's no wonder you think the Bible is a scientific reference book. You saw a computer animation of DNA that happened to have the color blue assigned to the backbone of the polymer and then spent over 100 pages of another thread arguing that DNA had a "blue laminate". Later, you admitted that you must have been wrong about this. Now you've taken an artist's rendition of the structure of a flagellum and are claiming that it must have been designed based on a pretty picture. Not on a microscopic image, not a molecular analysis of the parts that go into it, but based on a pretty picture that someone else drew. Wonder how many pages of arguing it'll take you to figure out that you're wrong about this as well
At least one of us admits when we have been wrong.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





All you have to do is actually do some proper research for once. But once again, you simply ignore the link proving you wrong and continue to spread your hogwash.
Well I'll admit that I don't probably have the time into research that you guys do, but I find myself stopping on the links when they openly address the material as postulated theorys.

Speaking of not doing research, right here on ATS right now is a forum about people getting sick from raw milk.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just look at how well we have evolved. NOT!
edit on 4-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Only one of us lacks the reading comprehension skills to understand the information they're using to support their arguments. But by all means, feel free to present an example of where I've manufactured something in my head based on a pretty picture and then claimed that it was definitive evidence of something, e.g. "DNA has a blue laminate", or claimed the exact opposite of a page I've linked to try and support my assertions, e.g. "humans are not primates".

But, after all, these things could never have happened, right? I must just be "profiling" you. Whatever that means.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well I'll admit that I don't probably have the time into research that you guys do,

You could always spend less time posting inane replies and more time doing basic research on the material that's freely available to everyone ...


but I find myself stopping on the links when they openly address the material as postulated theorys.

... because if you did, you'd at least understand how science works. This statement clearly shows you don't.


Speaking of not doing research, right here on ATS right now is a forum about people getting sick from raw milk.

Speaking of not doing research, it's obvious that you haven't looked into this enough to understand why people are getting sick from the milk ...


Just look at how well we have evolved. NOT!

... because if you did, you'd understand that it has nothing to do with evolution. This statement clearly shows that you still don't understand the basics of evolution. I doubt you ever will.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Are you talking about iterationzero here? I have called you out numerous times on being blatantly wrong and you always come up for some excuse for why you will not admit that you are wrong. I have provided you with links that provide you with proof that you are wrong and you always come back with "Well..." followed by the most unscientific drivel I have ever heard just so you don't have to admit you're wrong. As iterationzero said learn to take accountability for your failings.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





All you have to do is actually do some proper research for once. But once again, you simply ignore the link proving you wrong and continue to spread your hogwash.
Well I'll admit that I don't probably have the time into research that you guys do, but I find myself stopping on the links when they openly address the material as postulated theorys.

Speaking of not doing research, right here on ATS right now is a forum about people getting sick from raw milk.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just look at how well we have evolved. NOT!
edit on 4-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


How exactly are milk allergies debunking evolution? It makes perfect sense to be honest. Humans haven't used cattle for milk production for that long. So since homo sapiens evolved, most of the milk we drank was human milk as babies...and then none. Only since farming started did the larger population start to drink milk...so some of them are allergic.

Animals have allergies too. And illnesses. It's normal, it's how biology works.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

There is no evidence that man evolved from monkeys/apes. Both man and monkeys/apes could have evolved from the same creature and any missing link could be used to prove either theory. There are so many variables that can't be definitely proven that it seems researching exactly what happened or arguing over it is just a waste of time. I don't know why man likes to debate things like that, must be some sort of ancient conditioning to steer us away from seeing important things.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

There is no evidence that man evolved from monkeys/apes. Both man and monkeys/apes could have evolved from the same creature and any missing link could be used to prove either theory. There are so many variables that can't be definitely proven that it seems researching exactly what happened or arguing over it is just a waste of time. I don't know why man likes to debate things like that, must be some sort of ancient conditioning to steer us away from seeing important things.



Now wait a second. First you say there's no evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys/apes, and then you turn around and say that you don't know enough to debate it?

How can you say that if you've never even done any research? Of course there's proof. Without proof, the scientific community would never even give it a glance. Only religions have been against the theory of evolution because it conflicts with the primitive idea that God chose humans as some special creation that exists outside the laws of nature. Get with the modern age and learn to use logic and reason.

Fossils, chromosomes, and shared traits are just the beginning parts of the proof that we share a common ancestor with the apes. If you observe apes in the wild, you will notice that they act very "human" too. The only reason you probably assume that they are stupid animals that do nothing is that you have never seen them and are simply brainwashed by your upbringing and religion.

That's my perspective on the matter.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Speaking of not doing research, it's obvious that you haven't looked into this enough to understand why people are getting sick from the milk ...
And its evident that you once again totally missed the point. We aren't suppose to be drinking it to begin with.




... because if you did, you'd understand that it has nothing to do with evolution. This statement clearly shows that you still don't understand the basics of evolution. I doubt you ever will.
And you missed yet another point... It's obvious that we aren't evolving. Had we of evolved, we first of all wouldn't be getting sick from the milk and second we wouldn't have had to be drinking it in the first place.

Your so far behind understanding whats going on with all this that your actually tripping over the problems.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Are you talking about iterationzero here? I have called you out numerous times on being blatantly wrong and you always come up for some excuse for why you will not admit that you are wrong. I have provided you with links that provide you with proof that you are wrong and you always come back with "Well..." followed by the most unscientific drivel I have ever heard just so you don't have to admit you're wrong. As iterationzero said learn to take accountability for your failings.
Just becuase I choose not to buy into postulated, hypothetical theorys, doesn't mean I'm failing.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





How exactly are milk allergies debunking evolution? It makes perfect sense to be honest. Humans haven't used cattle for milk production for that long. So since homo sapiens evolved, most of the milk we drank was human milk as babies...and then none. Only since farming started did the larger population start to drink milk...so some of them are allergic.

Animals have allergies too. And illnesses. It's normal, it's how biology works.
Well its complicated, but first of all I was told that evolutionists believe that our ability to adapt is a form of evolution. In other words we adapted in our needs of calcium by drinking cows milk.

Of course it's got to be the biggest snow job I have ever heard of, and totally doesn't make sense, but anyhow....

Had we of evolved correctly, which according to wiki is on the molecular level, we would have adjusted with our needs in calcium and would have no longer had the demand.

So here is your choices, either we failed to evolve by continuing to have a high demand for calcium when we have no natural way to get it, or we failed to evolve by having alergies to our aleged adaptation.

Either way you slice it, we failed to evolve.
edit on 4-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Had we of evolved correctly, which according to wiki is on the molecular level, we would have adjusted with our needs in calcium and would have no longer had the demand.


That's like saying, "Had we evolved correctly we would no longer need any kind of sustenance." As has been pointed out to you time and again humans have access to a number of different sources of calcium. Milk just happens to be readily available. Due to this humans have a much easier time processing milk than other mammals.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And its evident that you once again totally missed the point. We aren't suppose to be drinking it to begin with.

I'd tend to agree, milk is primarily there for nutrition and as a kickstart to the immune system of the young of the animal that's creating the milk. Our use of other species' milk is a matter of convenience -- cattle and related species were easily domesticated and milk is abundant. Unfortunately, it allowed us to displace other things in our diet that we should be eating. The problem is that, in general, people haven't gone back to eating the foods that were displaced while drinking less milk, so they run into nutritional problems.

But this has about as much to do with evolution as my ability to fill out my tax forms this year.


And you missed yet another point... It's obvious that we aren't evolving. Had we of evolved, we first of all wouldn't be getting sick from the milk and second we wouldn't have had to be drinking it in the first place.

And for the second time you're showing that you haven't even read enough about what's going on to understand what's causing people to get sick from drinking raw milk in this case.


Your so far behind understanding whats going on with all this that your actually tripping over the problems.

I'm still waiting for you to present something to trip over. But I'm sure you'll use this opportunity to try and reignite your recent series of threads that were dumped in skunk works and ground to a screeching halt within two pages of your crowing about how you "proved" stuff on other "channels". Bravo.
edit on 4/2/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 207  208  209    211  212  213 >>

log in

join