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: 229
31
<< 226  227  228    230  231  232 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What on earth does the drivel above even mean? 'If I can see it, touch it world then it must not be real'

The rest creeps me out as you paint the picture of you as Freddy Cruger type. Touchin everything. OOooh (shudders)
Wow, thank you for catching that, what I meant was if I CAN'T see it, or touch it world, then it must not be real.




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Which is the very definition of religion. You have succeeded in creating a religion for yourself, and that is all you have accomplished.
A religion that is not sure about if there is a creator? A religion where the people are victims of genocide? A religion with no happy events or possible ending? A religion where people are tortured?

What the hell kind of religion is that ????????????????




Then, yet again, you've heard incorrectly or only heard what you wanted to hear. It's part of the science education standards for every state in the US.
I don't know what US your talking about, but in the one I'm in, its taught but the individual still has a choice in what they want to believe in, er, religion or anything else.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





You heard wrong!
Ok so now you will educate me on the supernatural ??





And for anybody else who cares, you just stated "in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter"

In this statement, tooth has admitted that statistics, and evidence will be ignored because of the subject matter. I dont even know where to begin....L.M.A.O
Well if I'm wrong, then there isn't a single thing in the bible that you find to be fantasy, or made up ??



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





I think we just won the lottery, but now we're arguing that theres no way, because the chances are just too small, so now we're trying to figure out, how it got cheated, when in fact, we just won fair and square.
You are unable to provide any proof that shows how humans came to be on earth, yet you won the lottery. Epic fail.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





You heard wrong!
Ok so now you will educate me on the supernatural ??





And for anybody else who cares, you just stated "in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter"

In this statement, tooth has admitted that statistics, and evidence will be ignored because of the subject matter. I dont even know where to begin....L.M.A.O
Well if I'm wrong, then there isn't a single thing in the bible that you find to be fantasy, or made up ??




You seem to have posted quotes by me, but are replying to something else. neither of your replies make any sense, please clarify!

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



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A religion that is not sure about if there is a creator? A religion where the people are victims of genocide? A religion with no happy events or possible ending? A religion where people are tortured?

What the hell kind of religion is that ????????????????

I'd say it speaks volumes about the mind of the person that invented it.


I don't know what US your talking about, but in the one I'm in, its taught but the individual still has a choice in what they want to believe in, er, religion or anything else.

But that has nothing to do with what you claimed. You said, in this post, that:


And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Which is wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





I think we just won the lottery, but now we're arguing that theres no way, because the chances are just too small, so now we're trying to figure out, how it got cheated, when in fact, we just won fair and square.
You are unable to provide any proof that shows how humans came to be on earth, yet you won the lottery. Epic fail.


Well you think that evolution's chances of leading to us was too small. I was just trying to show you that just because they are small, doesn't it mean it didn't happen, it also doesn't mean you just ignore it completely. I have provided evidence that we are from earth, because we have been here for awhile, just look at human history. What you haven't been able to prove, is how the universe is older than 15 billion years, how humans aren't from earth??



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I'd say it speaks volumes about the mind of the person that invented it.
I believe a religion would have benefits, so tell me, what do I get out of this?




But that has nothing to do with what you claimed. You said, in this post, that:
I'm saying its a choice, a poor one, but still a choice.




Which is wrong.
Do you mean wrong because they really are teaching it or wrong because its evolution.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I think creationists act more like artificial intelligences than evolutionists do.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





Well you think that evolution's chances of leading to us was too small. I was just trying to show you that just because they are small, doesn't it mean it didn't happen, it also doesn't mean you just ignore it completely. I have provided evidence that we are from earth, because we have been here for awhile, just look at human history. What you haven't been able to prove, is how the universe is older than 15 billion years, how humans aren't from earth??
Well I think the numbers speak for themself. Take what ever the figure was with cards, and multiply that times 5 million species.

We have no proof of any species ever changing into any other species.
I'm sorry if you believe differently but I have to ask you if it is true that a species has changed into another, what species names are they?
Don't you think if this had ever been witnessed it would be a momentious time in life and they would not only be advertising it but the names of the species would forever be in our text books reminding us all the time that Dog turned into a dogget or a cat turned into cattis.
There is nothing along these lines because it never happens, all we have is variations within a species, again, within a species. You always end up with the same species.

Now ander if you are unable to produce some names of species that have been identified changing into another species, and you don't have the names of either species, how can bodly make the claims that you make? Simple because you believe in postulated hypothetical theorys that have never been witnessed, and you even though I point this out to you, you still choose to believe in something that is false.

You would also be able to answer the question I posed about if there ever was a species that changed, what is it supposed to eat, and how is that determined.

You lack of an answer or a misguided answer will say it all when you respond, or choose to not respond to these questions.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


How about the species that have "leftovers", like Ostriches who no longer use their wings. They evolved from a species that used wings, into one that had no need for them.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





How about the species that have "leftovers", like Ostriches who no longer use their wings. They evolved from a species that used wings, into one that had no need for them.
And just like every other example and fantasy I have heard about evolutionism, its very nice, and neat and all. The problem your overlooking here and falling for is quite sad. You see, you started with an ostrich, and some changes occured, and you still have an osterich. Nothing changed.

My question is if you honestly believe that the ostrich evolved from something else, where are the bones and proof, and what was its name?

Keep in mind I'm also asking you the same question about all the other 5 million species here on earth that also had to have evolved from something else as well, where are all there bones and what was there names.

Why is it that we never get to see that missing link.... Why is it that we never are able to find bones or fossils that we can name that missing link. Why is it that when this evolution event happens, there are no scientists jumping for joy and getting there name in lights especially since they would be given full rights to name this new species?

I'll tell you why, because it's not happening.

Scientists do actually find new species all the time, but they never are able to find any that they can claim directly came from another species, and prove so. The are also never able to find bones of fossils that would be missing links either. In over 150 years they have dug up over 2.5 million fossils and bones and not a one can be called a missing link. I say IDIOTS, but I'm sure you would say they need to keep looking.

BTW, the whole term missing link is not accepted to evolutionism, they go by the term common ancestor.
The reason why they refuse to use the term missing link, is because they know they will never find one, and using common ancestor is an easy cop out to just say, we got close, and thats good enough.

You also failed to explain what this new species is suppose to eat.
The lamest excuse I heard so far is it will eat what it used to eat before. Doesn't sound like much of a different species at that point.
In addition this new species would technically be stealing food from the original species, so whoops.
I'm sorry, but as you can see, evolutionism is the biggest joke in the world.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Why does it have wings? It just grew wings for no reason? Or is it possibly because it once used those wings, and then came upon a new environment somehow and adapted. Same thing happened with Iguanas on the galopagos islands. You don't really think everything just started out like it did? The universe just popped into existence with humans, birds, dinosaurs and monkeys just walking around????? Where the hell is your proof for that???

ETA:
Or is it that you want to play a game of semantics, and say "oh well the bird that flew that turned into an ostrich was really an ostrich the whole time". We can play that game, its all about what we want to call things so we can have shared meaning. If you say species means one thing, and somebody else says it means another we'll never understand each other. You recognize that the ostrich may have had use for its wings, for flying, and then changed it's environment, and adapted to life without the use of flight. You just want to call both animals the same name and say we're wrong, it never changed. But you see this is just a mind game, we're both MEANING the same thing, but saying it differently, but to complicate it worse, you've changed the meaning of words that already have a general shared meaning that everyone understands. This is why anyone, and everyone you talk to won't agree, because your not using the same meaning we are. Lets just for now call the ostrich that used its wings, x, and we'll call the ostrich that doesn't use its wings, y. Now is x the same as y? No, otherwise they would both be x, or y, we wouldn't have to differentiate between them. But obviously we have to because one flies, and the other doesn't, so surely we should clearly identify each one, as opposed to calling them the same thing.
edit on 14-2-2012 by andersensrm because: ETA



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





Why does it have wings? It just grew wings for no reason? Or is it possibly because it once used those wings, and then came upon a new environment somehow and adapted. Same thing happened with Iguanas on the galopagos islands. You don't really think everything just started out like it did? The universe just popped into existence with humans, birds, dinosaurs and monkeys just walking around????? Where the hell is your proof for that???


Keep in mind that just because we don't have the exact answers to everything does not mean that evolution is there to fill in the gaps.
There are several reasons I can think of...
First is that he may have been exposed to radiation, or someother type of force. Possibly defects in genes as well. It's also an off chance that if we were all created, that mistakes were made. There is also the off chance that he is not from here, which I know some things were brought to earth.

It does leave a large question mark to think we all popped into existance. However I can tell you that both evolution and creationism, are not on target. You always go back to who or what made the first slime. It seems that there has to be either something we don't grasp, or something we know nothing about.
A television program I watched did state that planets were being formed, and from what we can tell, all life as we know it, was also formed on the planet. Not in the form of it evolving or a creator putting them there, but that everything is just there.
I know it sounds weird but one thing I can tell you for sure, is regardless of how its happening, planets are made in a balanced eco system, and we are NOT part of earths system. We are destroying this planet and earth will continue to reject us as long as we are here. And its all getting worse.

Evolution CANT work, there is no possible way. Creation is possible but only leaves questions as to how it all started. There is something big, very big out there, and we don't even have a clue.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





ETA:
Or is it that you want to play a game of semantics, and say "oh well the bird that flew that turned into an ostrich was really an ostrich the whole time". We can play that game, its all about what we want to call things so we can have shared meaning. If you say species means one thing, and somebody else says it means another we'll never understand each other. You recognize that the ostrich may have had use for its wings, for flying, and then changed it's environment, and adapted to life without the use of flight. You just want to call both animals the same name and say we're wrong, it never changed. But you see this is just a mind game, we're both MEANING the same thing, but saying it differently, but to complicate it worse, you've changed the meaning of words that already have a general shared meaning that everyone understands. This is why anyone, and everyone you talk to won't agree, because your not using the same meaning we are. Lets just for now call the ostrich that used its wings, x, and we'll call the ostrich that doesn't use its wings, y. Now is x the same as y? No, otherwise they would both be x, or y, we wouldn't have to differentiate between them. But obviously we have to because one flies, and the other doesn't, so surely we should clearly identify each one, as opposed to calling them the same thing.


The other thing that your overlooking in all this is what is the true definition of normal regarding ANYTHING in a species? Humans are typically 5 and 6 feet tall, and aside from some small tolerences, we start to look at anything way below or above as a potentional defect. In other words, people have come complacent in accepting 5 and 6 feet tall persons as the norm, as that is mostly what we have. The truth is, for all we know, we are all the defects and the other ones are the norm.
The allowed variances in a species are set by us. We determine whats normal, and whats not. There isn't anything scientific that shares this interest accept for the fact that those way small or way tall usually have additional defects, so an assumption is made that they are obviously not the norm.
The osterich might have small wings and no longer be able to fly, but it's possible that his wings were on the edge of barley working to begin with. After some variances or genetic drift, he wings could have gotten shorter, and becoming usless.
We can make an assumption that he is different, and he is no doubt, but how do we know hes not in the normal limits for what his species allows.

Here is another example. If someone popped up for the first time with purple eyes, we would immediatly look at this as a possible defect. The truth is how do we not know that it has always been an option in our species that just never surfaced yet. Granted its odd for not popping up till now, but you get my point?
We don't know, and there is no way to know.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I believe a religion would have benefits, so tell me, what do I get out of this?

I have never seen any definition of religion that states that it's necessarily beneficial. What do you get out of it? Not a clue. Some people practice self-flagellation as part of their religion, maybe this is your psychological version of it. I could speculate about it all day long but that's not really the point, is it? You yourself stated that interventionism is outside of the realm of "statistics and evidence", so it's just another religion.


I'm saying its a choice, a poor one, but still a choice.

No, that's not what you said. You said, referring to evolution:


And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Which is factually incorrect.


Do you mean wrong because they really are teaching it or wrong because its evolution.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. It was clear from the statement of yours that I quoted immediately prior to my reply that I was saying your claim that "we aren't teaching [evolution] in our schools" is factually incorrect. Here's the relevant part of the post again, in case your memory doesn't reach back quite that far:



And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.


Which is wrong.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I have never seen any definition of religion that states that it's necessarily beneficial. What do you get out of it? Not a clue. Some people practice self-flagellation as part of their religion, maybe this is your psychological version of it. I could speculate about it all day long but that's not really the point, is it? You yourself stated that interventionism is outside of the realm of "statistics and evidence", so it's just another religion
Well first off I don't know that I agree that all religion is outside the realm of statists and evidence. In your idea it might be but not in mine. Second, all people get something out of there religion. Getting to go to heavan, or something like that. I'm not sure what your thinking mine is but there doesn't seem to be any. I think if anyone would know, it would be the person believing.

It looks more like its simply not just a belief.




I'm saying its a choice, a poor one, but still a choice.

No, that's not what you said. You said, referring to evolution:


And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Which is factually incorrect.
Yes my son informed me his school did in fact review evolutionism.

You have to remember that if it's something not provable, it most likely falls into the beleif bin, which this did.




Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. It was clear from the statement of yours that I quoted immediately prior to my reply that I was saying your claim that "we aren't teaching [evolution] in our schools" is factually incorrect. Here's the relevant part of the post again, in case your memory doesn't reach back quite that far:
One person had given me wrong info. I should have just asked my son first, after all he is in school.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Yes my son informed me his school did in fact review evolutionism.

You have to remember that if it's something not provable, it most likely falls into the beleif bin, which this did.


How is it that you can believe your beliefs without any evidence, and then turn around and say that evolution, which is provable by hard scientific data cannot be proven? It's like you are willfully ignorant, and you're trying to spread it to your child, no doubt. Just wait till he takes a biological studies course. You might see him become an "evolutionist." Course, you could always brainwash him more by saying over and over that evolution has no evidence, even though it has tons of evidence, and then tell him to believe some books written by people a long time ago with no evidence, saying that if something doesn't need evidence, then it must be true!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





How is it that you can believe your beliefs without any evidence, and then turn around and say that evolution, which is provable by hard scientific data cannot be proven?
First off there is proof in what I believe in. There is clear documentation from the bible, other bibles, and Sitchen, Pye, and Von Daniken. I don't think that everyone can be wrong.

Evolution is NOT provable. I don't know how many times I will have to say this, but they have never been able to force evolution and see it in action. The only exception is with viruses and bacteria. That does not qualify humans and other life. Assumptions are being made that it does and that is just wrong.




It's like you are willfully ignorant, and you're trying to spread it to your child, no doubt. Just wait till he takes a biological studies course.
It's funny you bring this up, and while I'm not inclined to share personal details about my family, I will this time. I told him at the age of 9 that he can choose any religion he wants, I will even drive him to church. Years later I revealed my understanding of things to him and he agrees with me. I made it clear to him that just because I'm his father, he doesn't have to believe the same things I do, but he agrees that its overwhelming and obvious as to what has happened to us. He also stated yesterday that evolution is taught in his school and there is some truth to that as well.

Again I think evolution is evident in viruses and bacteria and pretty much stops there.




You might see him become an "evolutionist." Course, you could always brainwash him more by saying over and over that evolution has no evidence, even though it has tons of evidence, and then tell him to believe some books written by people a long time ago with no evidence, saying that if something doesn't need evidence, then it must be true!
He's a straight A student right now so I doubt seriously if something like that will happen. Not that intervention doesn't deserve brilliant minds, I just don't think most people can handle it nor are they ready.
Stick to evolution if you have fears is all I can say.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Of course not, wouldn't that be like you asking me to take your word for it? Are you noted for being the Osami of worldly information?

It's not my information. It is the information derived from scientific study and observation over the past 150 years. You act like I'm just guessing on this stuff, but your opinion is nothing more than a guess.




Well we all pretty much live in a "if I can see it or touch it world, then it must not be real." I step out of the box a tad and give a little thought to the possibility that I MIGHT not know everything, and that I MAY not have seen and touched everything.

You certainly don't know everything. I'd even say you barely know anything at all. No offense, just basing it on your inability to defend your points or even have a conversation on the topic without making up assumptions and changing the subject whenever you are proven wrong.




If so, we'd be in big trouble and would probably still be in the dark ages.



Well then I must be ahead of you in leaps and bounds.

This proves what I said above. You either intentionally ignored what I said or can't comprehend it.



YOU, haven't proven anything Dr, Barcs. You have presented some links which I'm sorry to say all are introduced in plain english as hypotheticle and postulated theorys. I don't know why everyone keeps missing this important fact. Is it that you guys don't read the links you send me to, or do you conveniently skip over this introductory sentance?

It's not my fault you instantly dismiss scientific studies and experiments, written by people that have dedicated their lives to learning as much as they can about evolution. You don't read, you just find a buzz word like "hypotheses" and instantly think it means the entire thing is a guess. Sorry bud, experiments are repeatable and testable. Your guess is nothing more than a guess. Evolution has been observed in a lab, including speciation. Races of homo sapien prove that evolution happens in humans. Homo sapiens changing from just 30,000 years ago to the present proves evolution in humans. You cannot provide a better scientific explanation, and your hypothesis has zero evidence behind it. Sorry, you can't provide ANYTHING that suggests otherwise, and its been that way the entire thread. I just don't understand that blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Don't tell people their views are wrong when they back it up with evidence, and you fail to provide evidence of your theory. You've also completely ignored the topic of the thread and won't stop repeating the same nonsense over and over again. There's another ancient aliens thread with your name on. Why not post in a thread where its actually relevant instead of trolling this one?


Ok, so your claiming that humans have now been observed changing into another species. I want to know, who observed this, when, and what they were observed changing into. As well as what the name of the new species is.

I've explained this dozens of times but you ignore it. Changes happen slowly, nothing suddenly changes into another species. Why do you constantly ignore this? I know you'll ignore any link I post and everything I say even though it's accurate, so I guess that's pretty much it. You failed to explain race and changes observed in humans in the past 30,000 years. Again, if you can't do this, you have nothing at all to prove your ridiculous statement that evolution has never been seen in humans. It has.



I don't know what your talking about in this section, but can disagree with you based on the fact that every example I have been able to produce that squashes the possibility of evolution has NEVER been met with an acceptable answer. It just proves that I'm correct, and your being incredulous.

Evolution has hundreds of pieces of evidence to back it up. You are the one making assumptions and ignoring anything that contradicts your world view. Why are you afraid to admit that its faith and has no evidence behind it? Evolution happened, has been observed, repeated, tested, etc etc. It's not even disputed anymore in the scientific community. It's peer reviewed by scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding how things work. You can keep lying and ignoring evidence, but all it does is hurt your credibility, hence why even Quad, someone who is also a creationist, even disagrees with you. You make him seem like a logical evolution expert in comparison. I probably shouldn't have even responded again, but I have to keep you honest. If you keep lying and ignoring evidence, then I will keep calling you out on it.




top topics



 
31
<< 226  227  228    230  231  232 >>

log in

join