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: 227
31
<< 224  225  226    228  229  230 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





You're still using Von Daniken and Sitchin as proof. I thought I explained to you long ago why these two are wrong. What makes a economic history major with no background in Assyriology more of an expert in the Sumerians than everyone who has spent their lives devoted to studying them? What makes a convicted con man more of an expert than every archaeologist and anthropologist on the planet?
Simple truth!




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





The fact that evolution has never been observed in humans and 99.999% of the other life here pretty much sums it up for me.


Why lie like that when we've already explained it 1000 times?
well you can explain it all you want but until I read it from one of your cheesy sites you link me too, I'm going to have a hard time believing in it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Using your own number from before of .01e22, there is a lower chance of a deck of cards being in a specific order. So, either the order of a deck of cards has a lower probability of occurring than man evolving, or you just made up a number and you don't actually know what you're talking about. Which is it?

Not saying your wrong, its just what I watched. I think it was called "what we now know".



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





At this point, trolling would be a better word. There's nothing I or anyone else can add that will make you see reason, inspire you to educate yourself, or even read your own posts before you hit "reply."

I don't buy your "correction". That was just a lame attempt at getting out of coming up with something so demonstrably stupid. If you'd meant what you said in your "correction", you'd have said that in the first place.
Not with the way I type. Now your just profiling me.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Using your own number from before of .01e22, there is a lower chance of a deck of cards being in a specific order. So, either the order of a deck of cards has a lower probability of occurring than man evolving, or you just made up a number and you don't actually know what you're talking about. Which is it?


Hee hee. Most creationists love to cite the 1X10^50 as the magic number, and 1X10^20 is a lot higher probability.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

edit on 2/13/2012 by HappyBunny because: Accidental double post



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth


Using your own number from before of .01e22, there is a lower chance of a deck of cards being in a specific order. So, either the order of a deck of cards has a lower probability of occurring than man evolving, or you just made up a number and you don't actually know what you're talking about. Which is it?



My bet ius on the latter
Like I said, its just what I watched.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





At this point, trolling would be a better word. There's nothing I or anyone else can add that will make you see reason, inspire you to educate yourself, or even read your own posts before you hit "reply."

I don't buy your "correction". That was just a lame attempt at getting out of coming up with something so demonstrably stupid. If you'd meant what you said in your "correction", you'd have said that in the first place.
Not with the way I type. Now your just profiling me.


No I'm not. You don't read what you write before you hit "reply".



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well I know that, and you know that, but a lot of people don't see it that way. The bottom line is most people are simple minded and feel that attrition is the only way to win a debate.

In the wiki article of mtDNA as an example, they make it clear that from our findings of a 200,000 year old ancestor, religion is left by the wayside.


And why shouldn't it be?


They also state that this could add more credibility to other understandings like evolution. But then they turn around and state that we need to look at more pioneering avenues, to figure learn more about our existence.


Who said this? Cite, please.


I firmly believe that they are purposely withholding our true age, which they admittedly claim to have mapped the entire genome. They are also mentioning religion and evolution as not giving us a clear understanding to our existence which is why they say we need to look at more pioneering possibilities. I'm looking at once such avenue. Intervention is a pioneering idea that most find hard to accept. No one including myself wants to believe that we aren't from here. Unfortunately it seems to be all we are left with. There is a very good reason why they aren't disclosing our true age. It's because they would look like fools especially if our age dates us older than earth. People would not take them seriously and they wood look like fools and lose all credibility.


You keep saying "they." "They are hiding", "they" are doing this, "they" are doing that...Who is they, and what evidence do you have to back that up?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Nope, your confusing what is commonly taught and practiced as the word of god, as being all we need to know and understand.

So no honey even though the bible says honey is good for you? You read the bible in the same way as you read your own links. From a point of ignorance with every intention to stay there.
That is because I don't see anything joyful about genocide when I read that book. Most people think that god was all loving. In a way, I guess I can see why they feel that way based on the fact that he could have just killed us all. My view of the overall picture is a little bit different.




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..

You preach about us having an overblown veiw of ourselves and here you believe you know more than your god. Sheesh. You must have a brain the size of a planet. A hollow one.
Well I never said that I'm smarter than you colin, but does the idea make you cringe?




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

It would appear to confirm my view that you cherry pick everything to match your idiots guide to the galaxy. You'll be telling me next Noah's ark was a transport prison ship that brought us to earth.
Don't misconstrue your lack of knowledge as me cherry picking things. I find nothing good about the plethora of punishments that were handed down, for any reason.

I do believe that since it was never explained how they were executed, people never took them at face value, assuming he never went through with the punishments, when in fact he did. According to Lloyd Pye's human genetics video. It looks like we found our defects.

Noah's ark was obviously for transporting animals, I don't recall anything about it transferring humans, it sounds like your making things up. Or are you just being incredulous?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Just because the odds for something are low doesn't mean they can't happen. For example, if you draw five cards out of a deck of cards the odds of getting those five exact cards are 1 in 311,875,200. The odds of a deck of cards being in a certain order are 1 in 8.07e67. If one simply went with the odds you would say that these events could never occur yet the happen all the time. However, this is moot as the odds of life occurring on Earth are presently 1 in 1. We have one example of Earth and that Earth has life on it.


Exactly. Earth either 100% has life on it or it 100% doesn't.

I love it when creationists toss out stuff they don't understand. The odds of anything happening in a particular order purely by chance are slim to none, yet they happen all the time. That's what happens when you treat things as inevitable. I mean, what are the odds that I'd get to work at exactly 6:58 am this morning? God must have had a hand in it! (Weak example, but you get the point.)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Who said this? Cite, please.


en.wikipedia.org...




You keep saying "they." "They are hiding", "they" are doing this, "they" are doing that...Who is they, and what evidence do you have to back that up?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


en.wikipedia.org...


That's a long article and I'm already very familiar with Mitochondrial Eve. Can you be more specific? Why is it a bad thing to explore other avenues to finding out who we are? Why is that a bad thing?





You keep saying "they." "They are hiding", "they" are doing this, "they" are doing that...Who is they, and what evidence do you have to back that up?
en.wikipedia.org...


Oh, for the love of God. You're not serious, are you?
edit on 2/13/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Simple truth huh? Then please explain to me why Cylinder Seal VA 243 contains none of the things Sitchin claims it does. Or how about explaining why the word nibiru doesn't appear until the Akkadians and it doesn't take on an astronomical meaning until the Babylonians yet Sitchin claims its a Sumerian word and refers to a planet. As for von Daniken he has been debunked so many times its ridiculous. Although no one has probably done a better job than John Omohundro who published a paper back in 1976 pointing out the falsities within von Daniken's work. I will now close this post with a quote from von Daniken himself.


Playboy: Are you, as one writer suggested, “the most brilliant satirist in German literature for a century”?

Von Däniken: The answer is yes and no. ... In some part, I mean what I say seriously. In other ways, I mean to make people laugh.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That's a long article and I'm already very familiar with Mitochondrial Eve. Can you be more specific? Why is it a bad thing to explore other avenues to finding out who we are? Why is that a bad thing?
OMG Happy bunny, you really are a happy bunny aren't you. Are you alergic to reading. WTF man, read it. I promise its worth your time. Just think of it, you might learn something about your TRUE origon that evolution hasn't taught you. Honestly its worth memorizing like I have.

Just don't confuse the mrca with being our first ancestor. They had to publish a correcting because of that flaw.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I didnt realise...you can get a science masters from the university of wikipedia.

Here I have been, slaving away for all these years, reading text books, peers reviewed papers, performing research..and the answer was just a few clicks away..lol

Do you think the wikipedia university will ever replace the open university.

I know you shouldnt laugh at your own jokes...but the university of wikipedia...lmao...I now have new insult for stupid people.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Simple truth huh? Then please explain to me why Cylinder Seal VA 243 contains none of the things Sitchin claims it does. Or how about explaining why the word nibiru doesn't appear until the Akkadians and it doesn't take on an astronomical meaning until the Babylonians yet Sitchin claims its a Sumerian word and refers to a planet. As for von Daniken he has been debunked so many times its ridiculous. Although no one has probably done a better job than John Omohundro who published a paper back in 1976 pointing out the falsities within von Daniken's work. I will now close this post with a quote from von Daniken himself.


I don't know enough about Sitchens work, to make any comments about that. I will say however that I did read some debunking about him that was total nit picking. Just horrible. God forbid, none of the rest of his work could be right on. I think your judging a book by its cover. My mom used to have this saying. Life is like a burrito, you have to eat everything in the middle even if you don't like it. BTW it was long before life was a box of chocolates.

Anyhow VD has made some mistakes, and he has admitted to those mistakes. So hes human. Are you seriously looking for non human input in your decisions. Have none of the evolution authors NEVER made any mistakes because I could probably paste pages of them getting busted for trying to present fake bones alone.

The bottom line is there is still a lot of good in both of there work. Don't be so incredulious, have a slightly open mind, you might learn something.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





I didnt realise...you can get a science masters from the university of wikipedia.

Here I have been, slaving away for all these years, reading text books, peers reviewed papers, performing research..and the answer was just a few clicks away..lol

Do you think the wikipedia university will ever replace the open university.

I know you shouldnt laugh at your own jokes...but the university of wikipedia...lmao...I now have new insult for stupid people.
Well Wiki may not be the most reliable source for anything, but it is the quickest easiest and most reliable for getting a quick answer.

My skills are not that well and even I have found some problems with Wiki, which is pretty sad.

BTW, using the example of Wiki not ever being able to replace the university, you have to remember that everyone learns easier by different methods, so in a sense, you could be wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
well you can explain it all you want but until I read it from one of your cheesy sites you link me too, I'm going to have a hard time believing in it.


You won't believing anything, not even hard scientific evidence that I've posted. I'm just glad your beliefs don't count as reality. If so, we'd be in big trouble and would probably still be in the dark ages. I proved that evolution HAS BEEN OBSERVED in humans and other hominid species. You admitted you were wrong and changed the subject to speciation, and then surprise! 50 pages later you post the same lie you started with. Dishonesty is worse than ignorance, because usually in the event of ignorance, the person legitimately does not know he is wrong. In this case, you've been proven wrong, but won't accept any objective evidence that counters your world view. You can't just ignore objective scientific evidence because you feel like it.


Happy bunny, you really are a happy bunny aren't you. Are you alergic to reading. WTF man, read it. I promise its worth your time. Just think of it, you might learn something about your TRUE origon that evolution hasn't taught you. Honestly its worth memorizing like I have.

You didn't even answer her question!!! She asked who "they" was as you keep referring to and you quoted an article that had absolutely nothing to do with it. You keep making things up and linking things that have nothing to do with the topic.

edit on 13-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That is because I don't see anything joyful about genocide when I read that book. Most people think that god was all loving. In a way, I guess I can see why they feel that way based on the fact that he could have just killed us all. My view of the overall picture is a little bit different.
Apart from the fact I have no interest in another daydream you have thought up what has above to do with eating honey?
How does it explain why you cite the bible when it suits and then dismiss when it does not. If it is an historical document as you state then it ALL must be an historical document or NONE of it is any sort of document at all.

You wrote:


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..
I replied:


You preach about us having an overblown veiw of ourselves and here you believe you know more than your god. Sheesh. You must have a brain the size of a planet. A hollow one.
your reply to me:


Well I never said that I'm smarter than you colin, but does the idea make you cringe?
I never mentioned an IQ pi$$ing contest between me and you. You are clearly under the impression that you are thinking deeper than even god.


Noah's ark was obviously for transporting animals, I don't recall anything about it transferring humans, it sounds like your making things up. Or are you just being incredulous?
Ignored your other trash the same way I do when I hear any mad ranting. You had better read your historical document. The ark was clearly not just for transporting animals.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 224  225  226    228  229  230 >>

log in

join