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: 213
31
<< 210  211  212    214  215  216 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Definition of science master:- a postgraduate degree, usually in science, or the holder of this degree Abbreviation MSc. Is that you?
No I didn't go that long.




Identify that virus
I'm not prepared and it would take pages.





No clues then? maybe you could explain what an arcane virus is?
You have to understand that I first enountered this back in 1983 and it took over 20 years to realize it was a virus. I'm sure other people have encountered it but also didn't know it was a virus. Don't worry colin as soon As I get it posted Youll be the first to read it.




Hurtful? I was being respectful to a man with a Msc
I never said I have an Msc, your making assumptions again.




Nope. The question was about ants. Your turn to answer
I don't eat ants and I"m still waiting on an answer of what it is you think we are suppose to eat.




Well the comment originally adressed "Threads" which is innacurate. I only had one thread that was moved and the rest I placed in Skunkworks myself, so your wrong.

Fail. You said you posted all your threads in skunk works, now its all but one. If I was to look at another it would be all but two and then denial you ever wrote it.
My recent ones I placed in skunk works.




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


No its not, I never said that, what I said was there are over 2 dozen defects in our genes that wont allow you to live past puberty.

No, you stated quite categorically that none of us would live past puberty without medical intervention. Everyone else participating in the thread at this point seems to remember it except you. Not surprising, given your chameleon like ability to change your story at a moment's notice.


Well keep pushing it, cause its ALL you got.

We could go over your adamance about how humans aren't primates again. Granted, that wasn't an entire 40 page thread like the laminate. That was three or four pages of this one. You're missing far more than you hit and then you proceed to lie about it.


Thats because you spend all of your time profilling rather than following. I have to admit that colin has followed better than you have.

That's because this is colin's first thread dealing with you. I've already been around the carousel with you a few times and your propensity for falsehood and intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Please enlighten me with these other forms you speak of.

You're kidding me right? Everything we eat is another form of sustenance other than milk.


So this either means we weren't suppose to live where there are seasons, or we were suppose to rely on the cow for milk, Neither of which I agree with.

Once again I don't know where you're drawing this conclusion from. The point I was making was that cow's are an easy source of sustenance. Without them we would survive. Just like we have done for most of our existence. As I have already pointed out such things as beans, greens, and almonds are all potentially better for humans than milk. All of these things would have been available to a hunter-gatherer society. However, with the advent of agriculture we could leave this lifestyle behind and focus on ways to sustain ourselves that were easier.


Your trying to give reason as to why humans are not suppose to be drinking human milk. I'm sorry man, if its true, why are we the only ones doing this?

At this point I really have to ask if you're actually reading what I'm saying. I'm giving reasons for why humans drink cow's milk. As I have pointed out time and again humans, just like every mammal, only produces milk for a short period after the birth of a child. This is the reason for lactose intolerance. We are the first mammal to drink milk into adulthood. As this is only a recent development we have yet to evolve the necessary systems to break down lactose efficiently.

Let me just make it clear one more time. Every mammal only produces milk for a short period of time. Humans are no different. As a result no mammal drinks their mother's milk into adulthood. Humans are no different. Humans are different in the fact that we have found a way to continuously harvest milk from another animal. This means we can consume milk into adulthood, even though it isn't our own. Humans did this because they did not think there was any difference between cow's milk and human milk since they both look the same. They knew human milk was a form of sustenance, thus cow's milk was seen as a form of sustenance. It's not any more complicated than that. They weren't thinking about calcium or nutrition. All they cared about was finding ways to stay alive. They knew that milk could do this and they knew that they could get milk from cows.

Once again I feel like you're having a hard time comprehending the history human civilization. Everything you're finding flaws with are relatively recent changes. Humans existed for 90,000 years without cow's milk. They drank their mother's milk when young and when that dried up they moved on to other forms of sustenance. This is the same pattern that every other mammal adheres to.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I allready shared it with itera and he said he had no interest in it.

Another lie! You claimed that you couldn't find any of the information pertaining to the "blue laminate" after I repeatedly asked your for some kind of reference that I could read regarding it.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Please enlighten me with these other forms you speak of.

You're kidding me right? Everything we eat is another form of sustenance other than milk.
Aside from cows milk and mothers milk what was suppose to replace it?




Once again I don't know where you're drawing this conclusion from. The point I was making was that cow's are an easy source of sustenance. Without them we would survive. Just like we have done for most of our existence. As I have already pointed out such things as beans, greens, and almonds are all potentially better for humans than milk. All of these things would have been available to a hunter-gatherer society. However, with the advent of agriculture we could leave this lifestyle behind and focus on ways to sustain ourselves that were easier.
Have you actually looked at a chart to see what the percentages of those are in comparison to milk?




At this point I really have to ask if you're actually reading what I'm saying. I'm giving reasons for why humans drink cow's milk. As I have pointed out time and again humans, just like every mammal, only produces milk for a short period after the birth of a child. This is the reason for lactose intolerance. We are the first mammal to drink milk into adulthood. As this is only a recent development we have yet to evolve the necessary systems to break down lactose efficiently.
I know we have to drink milk, its our best choice at this point, what I'm saying is just because it is, doesn't prove it to be an intended source.




Let me just make it clear one more time. Every mammal only produces milk for a short period of time. Humans are no different. As a result no mammal drinks their mother's milk into adulthood. Humans are no different. Humans are different in the fact that we have found a way to continuously harvest milk from another animal. This means we can consume milk into adulthood, even though it isn't our own. Humans did this because they did not think there was any difference between cow's milk and human milk since they both look the same. They knew human milk was a form of sustenance, thus cow's milk was seen as a form of sustenance. It's not any more complicated than that. They weren't thinking about calcium or nutrition. All they cared about was finding ways to stay alive. They knew that milk could do this and they knew that they could get milk from cows.
Then if we weren't suppose to drink it from cows, or from moms teat, how are we suppose to get our calcium later on in life?




Once again I feel like you're having a hard time comprehending the history human civilization. Everything you're finding flaws with are relatively recent changes. Humans existed for 90,000 years without cow's milk. They drank their mother's milk when young and when that dried up they moved on to other forms of sustenance. This is the same pattern that every other mammal adheres to.
Ok and if this is true, then why do we once again need cows milk?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No I didn't go that long.
Oh so you mislead everyone on that thread then.


I'm not prepared and it would take pages.
You have posted many pages in many places. You have this unique discovery and cannot post it anywhere???? You cannot even give a description of what an arcane virus is (neither can google so I am not suprised)???


You have to understand that I first enountered this back in 1983 and it took over 20 years to realize it was a virus. I'm sure other people have encountered it but also didn't know it was a virus. Don't worry colin as soon As I get it posted Youll be the first to read it.
So you have known this was a virus since 2003 and have yet to let the world know? I guess I shouldnt hold my breath until you publish then.


I never said I have an Msc, your making assumptions again.
Well yes I made an assumption that you were honest. If someone says they are a science master they are or should be honest. You apparently are/were not.


I don't eat ants and I"m still waiting on an answer of what it is you think we are suppose to eat.
Oh dear, oh dear. More dishonesty. So your most favourite example, the ant eater who knows he belongs because he eats ants. Someone (me) points out that ants have a varied (probably more varied) diet as we do. I ask if this means they are not from here either and if that is the case the anteater is mistaken and your example falls apart and two avoiding replies is all the answer I get. Shame on you.


My recent ones I placed in skunk works.
You seem to base your world on stories. Do you know the one about the boy who cried wolf? You have been caught crying wolf far too often to be believed.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Another lie! You claimed that you couldn't find any of the information pertaining to the "blue laminate" after I repeatedly asked your for some kind of reference that I could read regarding it.
I also told you I attended a seminar through the church that gave more detail about it, and you told me you had no interest in my telling you about it.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Aside from cows milk and mothers milk what was suppose to replace it?


I swear we covered this months ago earlier in the thread. Humans don't need milk to survive. HUMANS DON'T NEED MILK TO SURVIVE. We don't need to drink milk. We don't need to. We just do because we can. We don't need to.

Has it gotten through your brain yet? Humans do not require milk past infancy. It doesn't need a replacement. It's a modern thing and if anyone tells you that we need it to stay healthy, then they are liars or looking for money.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Another lie! You claimed that you couldn't find any of the information pertaining to the "blue laminate" after I repeatedly asked your for some kind of reference that I could read regarding it.
I also told you I attended a seminar through the church that gave more detail about it, and you told me you had no interest in my telling you about it.


Did you ever inquire the church as to where their information came from? It being a seminar does not make it valid.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I swear we covered this months ago earlier in the thread. Humans don't need milk to survive. HUMANS DON'T NEED MILK TO SURVIVE. We don't need to drink milk. We don't need to. We just do because we can. We don't need to.

Has it gotten through your brain yet? Humans do not require milk past infancy. It doesn't need a replacement. It's a modern thing and if anyone tells you that we need it to stay healthy, then they are liars or looking for money.
I know we don't, but according to scientists, we do actually require more calcium, so why did we choose to get it from milk?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I also told you I attended a seminar through the church that gave more detail about it, and you told me you had no interest in my telling you about it.

No, you claimed that was a totally different seminar and had nothing to do with a "blue laminate". You claimed that the man holding the seminar said that DNA was in the shape of a cross or that the shape of the cross was present in DNA.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I already explained this. Our decision to drink milk didn't extend past, "Hey, babies drink milk. Those cows we've domesticated produce milk. Let's drink it." The first people to drink cow's milk had no concept of nutritional science. They were simply looking for food and drink to stay alive. It just so happens that milk is a great source of calcium. However, as I have pointed out numerous times now many items we would have foraged during our hunter-gatherer days would have also contained calcium. In fact we're finding now that these things are better at increasing bone density than cow's milk despite having less calcium. That's why calcium intake needs to increase as you're getting older. Your bones are becoming more frail. However, as I have also pointed out already, when humans first started drinking cow's milk they weren't living to the point where bone density began to decrease. That didn't occur until the past century or two.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

AH, but Xcalibur, you forget -- itsthetooth is a Biblical literalist. He believes that people used to live to be 1000 years old, so they would have been well past the prime age for decreasing bone density.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 
It is also not uniquely human. Ants farm and 'milk' aphids even though they do not need too to survive. It may not be milk but it is a secretion from another animal. Ants even take aphid eggs to their nest during the winter and place them back on selected plants later. Thus farming in every sense of the word.

They also farm certain fungus as we grow certain plants. This leads me to believe that ants do not know their target food as they also are not from this planet. Of course this means the anteater who knows he belongs because he eats ants is completely wrong and in fact as he is so reliant on ants he must also not be from here.

I have asked tooth to explain this anomaly with his theory and he refuses. I dont know why?


Edit
After further thought. Ants like humans build their own homes (nests) very unnatural if you ask me. The nests even have certain rooms for certain activities just like humans. Oh and a queen just like the English.

Ants are either definitely not from earth or humans definitely are from earth and the anteater is the key ironically because tooth says the anteater knows he is from here because he eats ants. The anteater therefore proves humans are from this planet. Who would have guessed.
edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: Thinking about it

edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: the queen god bless her

edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 
It is also not uniquely human. Ants farm and 'milk' aphids even though they do not need too to survive. It may not be milk but it is a secretion from another animal. Ants even take aphid eggs to their nest during the winter and place them back on selected plants later. Thus farming in every sense of the word.

They also farm certain fungus as we grow certain plants. This leads me to believe that ants do not know their target food as they also are not from this planet. Of course this means the anteater who knows he belongs because he eats ants is completely wrong and in fact as he is so reliant on ants he must also not be from here.

I have asked tooth to explain this anomaly with his theory and he refuses. I dont know why?


Edit
After further thought. Ants like humans build their own homes (nests) very unnatural if you ask me. The nests even have certain rooms for certain activities just like humans.

They are either definitely not from earth or humans definitely are from earth and the anteater is the key ironically because tooth says the anteater knows he is from here because he eats ants. The anteater therefore proves humans are from this planet. Who would have guessed.
edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: Thinking about it


All I can say is.......





posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


I'm not sure If I have not blown my mind and completely lost the plot. I am now wondering if because ants have a queen just like the English, if the English are not from here. I mean we only appeared after the last ice age and the queen likes gold



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
 


From our diet being all screwed up, to our inverted smiles, to us not fitting in with the other life on this planet. The bible, Von daniken, Sitchen, Pye all concur. So since evolutionism has no corroboration prior to Darwin, what you got?


Evolution was an accepted fact LOOOOOOOOOOONg before Darwin. I even posted a slightly off topic "short history of evolution" a few pages back. Darwin didnt discover evolution. Darwin recognised the mechanism for evolution which he called "natural selection", he even published a book called "origin of the species" or "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", you may have heard of it, it had pictures in it.(these were drawn by Darwin in black and white, so you could colour them in.)

Natural selection as Darwin understood it has been revised many times but still hold more or less accurate. The current model of the mechanism for evolution is call "neo-darwinian synthesis".

In summary, your statement above is false, I will accept a tacit apology.

tacit - adjective
1.
understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 






Would not try to argue with a science master.
Well if your saying its impossible for a tornado to reconstruct a 747 from a junk yard, then you got the point.




And if your saying you think thats how evolution works...you clearly havnt.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Your trying to give reason as to why humans are not suppose to be drinking human milk. I'm sorry man, if its true, why are we the only ones doing this?


We're not. Adult cows and sheep continue to drink milk into adulthood, its called "cross suckling". This is when an adult identifies a lactating mother and drinks the milk to the detriment of the calf/lamb.

But they're the same species, so how about cats stealing milk from the teat of nursing elephant seals. (as well as a plethora of birds)

www.mastozoologiamexicana.org...
edit on 5-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I finally get what tooth is saying. I can't believe we didn't agree with him before. It's so obvious.




new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 210  211  212    214  215  216 >>

log in

join