Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

Up until now I would just take this as another attempt at not answering the points I made. But now I see you really believe HUMANS LAY EGGS and it was not a typo.

There you go again with your selective reading skills again. I never wrote that we lay eggs, you might want to go back and read it again. We drop eggs, as in a menstrual cycle.

Colin I should start addressing you as bongo the chimp, as you read like one anyhow.

Coming from you, a science major and discoverer of an arcane virus, your opinion means nothing at all

OH I totally believe you have no respect for the science field.

did not really expect you to be big enough to admit error as you have proved yourself to be a very small person in every aspect of your character. I suggest you go lay a clutch of eggs and hatch out a few friends to talk too

Edit
Humans laying eggs? Does this mean humpty dumpty was real? Is he one of your aliens? You really are a complete yolk

Well we allready determined you have writing skill problems, and now you confirmed to have reading comprehension problems as well. I think I know whats going on now.

reply to post by colin42


Both of you have this all wrong. The reasons why people are so quick to dismiss or discredit religion is because religion is a threat in the eyes of evolution.

Creation COULD explain how every living thing is present here today. Some evolutionists don't like this idea as the only way that evolutionism will stand is through attrition.

reply to post by itsthetooth

All mammels drop eggs, its just that chicken eggs, when cooked, we eat.

It being so difficult to misconstrue the point of little gems like this, after all...

reply to post by iterationzero
I did not reply as I did not want to egg him on.

His mind appears scrambled enough already and his demur a little broody but now we know why.

Do you think when watching the film 'chicken run' he was singing 'let my people go'?

reply to post by itsthetooth


Ok, badly worded, but I think I know what you think you mean.

I could argue the point technicaly, but really dont see the point.

reply to post by Quadrivium

You have to understand that for years I have been told that evolution proves there is no God.

Hopefully you don't mind me replying to a post you directed at colin, especially since you stopped replying to mine some time ago, but I have to ask -- who told you that evolution proves there is no God? I find it surprising that anyone would do this, as even Dawkins, who is as far as one can get into "strong atheism" without actually positively asserting that there is no god(s), has said that science can't disprove God.

Many atheist even seem to take enjoyment in TRYING to prove Creation wrong using evolution.

I think it depends on what you mean when you say "Creation". If you mean a literal interpretation of the Biblical Genesis account being factual, then I'd argue that evolution, along with many other scientific concepts, falsify the hypothesis that that account is factually accurate. If you mean, as the deists meant, that God kickstarted the Universe and lets it run according to discoverable scientific principles, then I'd say that "Creation" and evolution, along with many other scientific concepts, are wholly compatible.

Why do you think so many do this if evolution actually has nothing to say about the beginning?

I can't presume to speak to what is on anyone else's mind when they make statements regarding the subject, especially when I'm not clear on exactly what was said. I've been a scientist for at least two decades longer than I've been an atheist and, in my experience, the people most likely to make the claim that science is out to end religious belief are theists.

Here's the God and Evolution FAQ from Talk Origins. It might help with understanding how, in my opinion, most scientists and lay proponents of evolution view the relationship. Also, you may want to check out some of the work of Dr. Kenneth Miller. He's a biologist at Brown who is Catholic and wrote a book about reconciling his religious faith with scientific fact.

Maybe I gave you the wrong impression but I in no way, shape or form accept that all diversity of life came from just one that had the ability to multiply.

It wasn't too long ago that some didn't accept that multicellular life could possibly come from unicellular life. And then it was observed.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Ok tooth,
I actually raise chickens, dairy goats, and I am an active bee keeper.

Bees make excess honey, the only thing that limits a strong hive is the amount of space they have and nectar flow.

They would never have survived without making excess honey. Many animals eat honey, its an excellent food source, and while bee's have a pretty good defensive mechanism, they still cannont withstand repeated attacks by honey seeking animal. Any bee colony that produced only enough for its own uses would quickly become extinct. Bee's that make excess can withstand the attacks and still thrive. This is a very good example of the evolutionary process

Prehaps you can explain why chickens lay eggs year round even if there are no roosters in the yard. No chance of fertilization yet they still lay.

As you may be aware, many egg laying animals will lay unfertalised eggs in a cycle. What you may not be aware is that some animals do not need the eggs to be fertalized in order for the egg to grow into an embryo, this is pathogenesis. Stick insects can be born, never have reproductive sex, and every egg they produce will still result in a new stick insect.

Even your honey bees produce fertalized eggs (which always turn into males) and unfertalized eggs (which always produce males) There is a very clear survival mechanism at work with this process and it provides insight into why many insects are highly communal. It does involve an undertsanding of, and willingness to accept "the selfish gene", or in darwinism, "kin selection"

Or why dairy goats and cows continue to lactate as long as their being milked.

Not sure with goats, but cows dont! They continue to lactate while their calf is suckling and untill it is weaned. A nusing mother will still only produce milk for a set period unless it is bred again. One of the biggest traversties of modern dairy farming is that the cows have to be kept "with calf" in order to produce milk. Unfortunately what happens is that any bull calfs (usless for milk and unless selectivly bred for meat, useless for that also) are slaughtered at birth to prevent them from taking the mothers milk. Female (cow) calfs are allowed to stay with the mother so that they in turn can be milkers when they reach maturity.

As an aside, if you drink milk, whether you consider yourself to be a vegitarian or not, you are directly resposible for the slaughter of thousand of immature male calfs. One way to combat this is to eat veal. Veal calfs are primarily the male offspring of milking cows, in order to produce veal calfs, they have to be allowed to stay with the mother and drink milk for several weeks before slaughter. Surley some life is better than immediate extermination at the moment of birth!

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Colin,
Despite this. there only needed to be one that had the ability to multiply. I am sure you know that so this cannot be what you are asking/fuzzy about.

Maybe I gave you the wrong impression but I in no way, shape or form accept that all diversity of life came from just one that had the ability to multiply. That leads us back to mammals turning into fish again.
Quad

Why would a mammal turn into a fish? If evolutionary pressures were right there is every possibility that a mammal could turn ito a fish like animal, but I wouldnt think it would turn into a fish.

The cetecea are probably the closest any mammal is currently to being a fish, but at what point would it become a fish? Gills? nope, to many other differences, but gills would certainly make it more "fish like".

When we look at any animal on the planet, the differences we see are only down to how we decide we are going to measure thos differences, And as you take a higher and higher level view, the less those differences are apparent.

We have already agreed that a species, by definition, means the ability to breed with its own type. That inability is what seperates the species.

By highlighting flies, you have pointed out that animals that we say are more or less identical, are seperated at species level, and thus the assumption is that some speciation is merely a severe form of adaptation amongst types. This I agree with.

But when you take a higher level view, and look at the entire family of insects, are they not all, more or less adaptations of a "type". We can see the similarities between forms between beetles, flies etc (head, abdomen thorax body layout, number of legs, wings antennea) and maybe accept that a little adaptation, maybe a lengthenning of a certain part of the body, or a fusing of the mouthparts, most of the insects are the same.

But would we not also agree that beetles a a definately different species to flies and ants?

Nd mammals are realy no different. The majority of mammals, us included, have almost identical structuctures. We have the same bones in more or less the same configuration. Body types are refered to as phenotypes, Mammalian is one, isets are another, crustacians,fish and so on.

When a fetus is developing in the womb, there is a point where all of the "parts" are present, somwhere between 1 and 2 months. At this point, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between one mammalian fetus and any other. What happens after this is that growth hormones kick in and each part of the fetus grows into the shape of the animal it will become.

As an example, when you were in the womb, each of your fingers grew at a set rate and produced your hand. The same bones in a horse grew at a different rate to produce the horses foot. The bones that were infuenced to grow most in the horse in this example were the middle finger. To all intents and purposes, a horse stands on the exact equivelant of your middle finger, with the horses hoof being an overdeveloped fingernail.

reply to post by idmonster

They would never have survived without making excess honey. Many animals eat honey, its an excellent food source, and while bee's have a pretty good defensive mechanism, they still cannont withstand repeated attacks by honey seeking animal. Any bee colony that produced only enough for its own uses would quickly become extinct. Bee's that make excess can withstand the attacks and still thrive. This is a very good example of the evolutionary process

Seriously youll never convince me we are suppose to eat honey. There just insn't a shred of evidence that tells us its suppose to be that way.

Ok but here is how I look at it. Would the bees die if we up and disappeared off the earth? NO.
Would we die if all the bees up and disappeared off the face of the earth? NO
So we are not part of there cycle of life.
Now would humans die if cows up and disappeared off the face of the earth, yes I believe that a small number would as others scramble for alternative sources of calcium.

Not sure with goats, but cows dont! They continue to lactate while their calf is suckling and untill it is weaned. A nusing mother will still only produce milk for a set period unless it is bred again. One of the biggest traversties of modern dairy farming is that the cows have to be kept "with calf" in order to produce milk. Unfortunately what happens is that any bull calfs (usless for milk and unless selectivly bred for meat, useless for that also) are slaughtered at birth to prevent them from taking the mothers milk. Female (cow) calfs are allowed to stay with the mother so that they in turn can be milkers when they reach maturity.

As an aside, if you drink milk, whether you consider yourself to be a vegitarian or not, you are directly resposible for the slaughter of thousand of immature male calfs. One way to combat this is to eat veal. Veal calfs are primarily the male offspring of milking cows, in order to produce veal calfs, they have to be allowed to stay with the mother and drink milk for several weeks before slaughter. Surley some life is better than immediate extermination at the moment of birth!

What I get our of all of this is man forcing bio necessity on these animals. Of course we have to, because we need them, but don't let colin know.

reply to post by itsthetooth


What is it that exists that we are "supposed" to eat. And how is that different from what we are eating now?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Seriously youll never convince me we are suppose to eat honey. There just insn't a shred of evidence that tells us its suppose to be that way.

I have neither the desire or the inclination to attempt to educate you any further. You are a lost cause. Although I find it quite starnge that you, who are hung up on "our natural food", fail to realise that honey is probably the closest we could come to finding a perfect food for humans.

www.whfoods.com...

Would we die if all the bees up and disappeared off the face of the earth? NO

Quite possibly. On of the largest pollinators of plant life suddenly doing one! Major implications to the entire food chain.

Now would humans die if cows up and disappeared off the face of the earth, yes I believe that a small number would as others scramble for alternative sources of calcium.

I would rather wake up tomoorow and observe cow rapture than bee rapture. We as a species would get along far better if all the cows dissapeared than if all the bees disapeared. This is why colony collapse is such a major issue

edit on 12-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

reply to post by itsthetooth

Seriously youll never convince me...

You should just change your signature this as a warning to anyone unfortunate enough to start a conversation with you.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Boy oh boy you really are a bone head.

Seriously youll never convince me we are suppose to eat honey. There just insn't a shred of evidence that tells us its suppose to be that way.

I wont try to convince you but how about your historical document the bible?

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey - the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." (Exodus 3:6-8)

Both MILK and HONEY from the very book you tell us is full of facts.

Whats your reply to that one?

edit: What the bible says about honey

A few more snippets

.
1. Honey in the bible was a symbol of good health for Samuel.
2. Honey in the bible was also a honoured gift.
3. The Book of Wisdom extols the goodness of honey.
4. John the Baptist survived on honey
5. Honey in the bible's last book -- Book of Revelation

reply to post by colin42

Touche colin. I actualy am laughing.

I personaly thought you did a wonderfulk job regarding ant et-al.

How the hell, over 200 pages did I miss the "oh so obvious, milk and honey" bible quote. So wish I'd got to that before you.

LMAO

reply to post by colin42

Boy oh boy you really are a bone head.


Seriously youll never convince me we are suppose to eat honey. There just insn't a shred of evidence that tells us its suppose to be that way.

I wont try to convince you but how about your historical document the bible?

And I guess you totally missed the point about 6 times now that it was also clear in the bible that things that were provided for us were also not from our home planet. Therefore they aren't OUR food, get it? I know your 3rd grade intelligence can get this the 7th time.

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey - the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." (Exodus 3:6-8)
Both MILK and HONEY from the very book you tell us is full of facts.

Whats your reply to that one?

edit: What the bible says about honey

A few more snippets
.
1. Honey in the bible was a symbol of good health for Samuel.
2. Honey in the bible was also a honoured gift.
3. The Book of Wisdom extols the goodness of honey.
4. John the Baptist survived on honey
5. Honey in the bible's last book -- Book of Revelation



edit on 12-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



signature:

idmonster

Member


Registered: 21-5-2010
Location:
Mood:
Member is on ATS now.



P 174 F 3 S 87
W 0.84 K 8member

go to profileadd as friendmake rivalview postsview threadsposts in threadsend messageALERT!

posted on 12-2-2012 @ 03:04 PM this post reply to post by colin42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Touche colin. I actualy am laughing.

I personaly thought you did a wonderfulk job regarding ant et-al.

How the hell, over 200 pages did I miss the "oh so obvious, milk and honey" bible quote. So wish I'd got to that before you.

LMAO


signature:
A government should only take from the people that which is sufficient to provide services to the people. Taking more is theft!

The only thing you have proven to me from all of this new found information is that you don't fully read what I write.

reply to post by idmonster

reply to post by colin42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Touche colin. I actualy am laughing.

I personaly thought you did a wonderfulk job regarding ant et-al.

How the hell, over 200 pages did I miss the "oh so obvious, milk and honey" bible quote. So wish I'd got to that before you.

I guess you also missed my clear repeated explanation of how things that were provided for us were not from our home, THERFORE they aren't intended for our consumption.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And I guess you totally missed the point about 6 times now that it was also clear in the bible that things that were provided for us were also not from our home planet. Therefore they aren't OUR food, get it? I know your 3rd grade intelligence can get this the 7th time.

But hold on. God, that guy mentioned a few times in the bible sent his people to the 'land of milk and honey' Was he mistaken? Should it have been 'the land where you have no food because you are not from here'?

Seriously youll never convince me we are suppose to eat honey. There just insn't a shred of evidence that tells us its suppose to be that way.

So all those quotes from the bible about honey were wrong? Your book of evidence?

The only thing you have proven to me from all of this new found information is that you don't fully read what I write.

No Ithink I have proved you wrote nonsense based on ignorance yet again. Yet again you wiggle and squirm and deny the obvious.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

reply to post by colin42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Touche colin. I actualy am laughing.

I personaly thought you did a wonderfulk job regarding ant et-al.

How the hell, over 200 pages did I miss the "oh so obvious, milk and honey" bible quote. So wish I'd got to that before you.

I guess you also missed my clear repeated explanation of how things that were provided for us were not from our home, THERFORE they aren't intended for our consumption.

Unfortunately, as its YOUR explanation, unfounded, not peer reviewed, without any basis in fact, it is of course, totaly worthless.

Simply stating your delusion does not make it a fact.

Now, I am not your psychaitrist, please stop expecting me to provide therapy for you. Your delusions are your own. They have no impact on reality and you are therefore free to continue to believe in your world view. Nothing you say here is going to change the world. If you truly, truly believe that your delusion is real, go and prove it, not to me, I have no interest. Prove it to the worlds. There will alomst certainly be a nobel in it.

And if you present firm evidence, If you succeed where your heroes (Pye, Stichen, VD) have failed and actually come up with some irrefutable evidence that your delusion is actualy real, and it is all of us that are delusional, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

So far, about 80% of all statements you have made have been wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. \primarily due to your own ignorance, an ignorance in which you seem happy to wallow. Again though, your ignorance, while sad has no effect whatsoever on the world. You could believe all you like, with all of your being that the sun is made from millions of LED's but your beleif will not make it so.

You are insignificant, your belliefs are insignificant,

Please stop bothering me!

reply to post by colin42

And I guess you totally missed the point about 6 times now that it was also clear in the bible that things that were provided for us were also not from our home planet. Therefore they aren't OUR food, get it? I know your 3rd grade intelligence can get this the 7th time.

But hold on. God, that guy mentioned a few times in the bible sent his people to the 'land of milk and honey' Was he mistaken? Should it have been 'the land where you have no food because you are not from here'?

Very good question. I have reason to believe that the people of that time actually knew and fully understood they were on the wrong planet. But I'll leave it at that, I wouldn't want you to burst any arteries.

Seriously youll never convince me we are suppose to eat honey. There just insn't a shred of evidence that tells us its suppose to be that way.

So all those quotes from the bible about honey were wrong? Your book of evidence?

Nope, your confusing what is commonly taught and practiced as the word of god, as being all we need to know and understand. I think I have proven beyond a doubt that the thing I'm talking about on here go just a tad deeper than what god tells us to do. God was not a good person, and for his own stingy reasons dumped us here, and could care less about our long term needs. So he left us with plenty of short term necesseties.

The only thing you have proven to me from all of this new found information is that you don't fully read what I write.

No Ithink I have proved you wrote nonsense based on ignorance yet again. Yet again you wiggle and squirm and deny the obvious

If I am squirming and wiggling colin, its only because of the lack of mentality you have to understand all of this.

reply to post by idmonster

Unfortunately, as its YOUR explanation, unfounded, not peer reviewed, without any basis in fact, it is of course, totaly worthless.

I beg to differ. I think the bible has actually been viewed by a few people. Not that they are reading it correctly but there you have it.

Simply stating your delusion does not make it a fact.

I don't think reading something can involve a delusion factor.

Now, I am not your psychaitrist, please stop expecting me to provide therapy for you. Your delusions are your own. They have no impact on reality and you are therefore free to continue to believe in your world view. Nothing you say here is going to change the world. If you truly, truly believe that your delusion is real, go and prove it, not to me, I have no interest. Prove it to the worlds. There will alomst certainly be a nobel in it.

Well there allready are people viewing intervention as a possibility. Pye, Sitchen, Von Daniken, and many others. Some of which are very well known. Unfortuntaly Von daniken made some mistakes and I'm learning how people just profile the hell out of people when mistakes are made. I see things in a better light.

I don't think what I believe is a delusion. Non of it is made up, its all based on documentation. Now evolution is based on a delusion. We have never witnessed nor do we have any bones proving any lineage has evolved from or to anything else. So you tell me which one sounds more delusional? Don't blame me, you chose to believe in it not me.

And if you present firm evidence, If you succeed where your heroes (Pye, Stichen, VD) have failed and actually come up with some irrefutable evidence that your delusion is actualy real, and it is all of us that are delusional, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

And I'll make sure your the first to do so with your new telepathic powers that are discovered as well. As odd as that sounds it seems to becoming more of a reality.

And if you present firm evidence, If you succeed where your heroes (Pye, Stichen, VD) have failed and actually come up with some irrefutable evidence that your delusion is actualy real, and it is all of us that are delusional, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

Well I'm not presenting anything, in terms of work, its allready been done, which means you have simply chosen to ignore and close your eyes. But hey thats your choice you know. I think I owned a rotary phone just 12 years ago. No one is going to push you into reality. The only thing I'm presenting here is my questions that support intervention. Sadly not a single one has been successfully answered by anyone on this thread. It proves even more that intervention is not only plausible, but most likely the avenue that was used.

So far, about 80% of all statements you have made have been wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. \primarily due to your own ignorance, an ignorance in which you seem happy to wallow. Again though, your ignorance, while sad has no effect whatsoever on the world. You could believe all you like, with all of your being that the sun is made from millions of LED's but your beleif will not make it so.

I see, so you believe that Pye, sitchen, Von Daniken and the bible are all wrong. How can you stoop to such a statement, and in the process call me ignorant? Honestly which one of us looks ignorant here?

You are insignificant, your belliefs are insignificant,

Please stop bothering me!

Well I wasn't aware I was bothering you, then again if you believe that everyone else is wrong, and your correct, I guess I can see that it's probably not difficult to bother you. The only thing I was hoping from you is some answers to some of the questions I have presented, and just like the others, you failed. Don't take it personally however. They were trick questions and I knew you couldn't answer them based on the fact that we are not from this planet. It looks like I was right again.