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: 233
31
<< 230  231  232    234  235  236 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





What would count as a link to you? You clearly choose to ignore all the hundreds and thousands of transitionary fossils, so what counts as a link?
Well any link counts, but I'm looking for ones that directly point out a connection between the bones and humans. Provided that's the most looked for species.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I see, so you totally dismiss that we are able to find prehistoric bones, but can't find any more recent ones? How is it that we are able to find dinosaur bones? They are older and rare.


Ok, you're an idiot. I'm sorry, that's against the TOS, but dinosaur "bones" are FOSSILS!

Good lord, I'm getting so sick and tired of how much you don't know.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





What would count as a link to you? You clearly choose to ignore all the hundreds and thousands of transitionary fossils, so what counts as a link?
Well any link counts, but I'm looking for ones that directly point out a connection between the bones and humans. Provided that's the most looked for species.


You mean like the extensive hominoid fossil record we already have? You seemed to have already dismissed it.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Ok, you're an idiot. I'm sorry, that's against the TOS, but dinosaur "bones" are FOSSILS!

Good lord, I'm getting so sick and tired of how much you don't know.
well I didn't know they are ALL fossilized.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You mean like the extensive hominoid fossil record we already have? You seemed to have already dismissed it.
No I have been sent to it several times.

You seem to be missing my question here.

What do we have that connects us to these hominoids?
I understand they have two eyes, a nose, a mouth and teeth, but do we have anything that ties them to the human race?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


your idea of evolution is to disprove that anything of meaning,purpose, or intelligence could exist before the culmination and manifestation of human intelligence?


you say everything is random except for what you can do?

so you say life evolves, why for you does that dismiss a higher level of intelligence that put forth the universe?




my point is its hard to talk to you when you think that everything is just stupid chemicals.... the way i look at it is,, the fact that chemicals, stupid or not exist, means there is an original inventor behind their existence, whatever that reason is, it was "intelligent" enough to "design" or blast off an infinite system of eternal eventage which include all scales, dimensions, geometry, laws of physics, stars, worlds, your intelligence, my sorry excuse for intelligence, all the intelligence that has ever existed or ever will, the fact that those "stupid" chemicals can evolve into diverse species and intelligence, is reason enough for me to submit to the fact that there is that which knows multiplied multiples of infinity more then I can hope to know in a few revolutions on this rock.


edit on 15-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





your idea of evolution is to disprove that anything of meaning,purpose, or intelligence could exist before the culmination and manifestation of human intelligence?


you say everything is random except for what you can do?

so you say life evolves, why for you does that dismiss a higher level of intelligence that put forth the universe?


Varema, I watched a video called what we now know. and they scientists have come to solid conclusion that there is no way all of these things could have been created by accident. The odds are just so way out there. Now with this, they are admitting a creator of some type but they aren't saying its god, just that there is a creator of some type.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





my point is its hard to talk to you when you think that everything is just stupid chemicals.... the way i look at it is,, the fact that chemicals, stupid or not exist, means there is an original inventor behind their existence, whatever that reason is, it was "intelligent" enough to "design" or blast off an infinite system of eternal eventage which include all scales, dimensions, geometry, laws of physics, stars, worlds, your intelligence, my sorry excuse for intelligence, all the intelligence that has ever existed or ever will, the fact that those "stupid" chemicals can evolve into diverse species and intelligence, is reason enough for me to submit to the fact that there is that which knows multiplied multiples of infinity more then I can hope to know in a few revolutions on this rock.


You want to know what I think is going on , Ima....
It is almost impossible to understand how these things could be in place without the intervention of some type of creator. I don't say that with exaggeration, its really hard to understand almost every step of life without it.
All the way down to the chemicals. Who made the chemicals, who made the complex chains that allow them to work in the way that they do. Who programmed the chains.

Anyhow. one thing that I often think about is the old saying which came first the chicken or the egg. But I do the same thing with a creator. Who made the creator. It really leaves me stumped.

I watched a program one time that said that planets are formed from gasses, and from what they can tell, there is just life on those planets. Talk about freaky. A joke was offered to me to see better what was happening.
There is a giant celestial squid in the cosmos that poops out planets and life. All hail to Trevor the giant celestial squid.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Varemia
 


what hes getting at,, is that evolutionists, with their belief of evolution try to dismiss the possibility that the way of evolution, or anything that has to do with life was created, intelligently...


First,welcome to the tread, you may live to regret it ....lol.....


evolutionists believe that it is completely a process of chance and probability that the conditions were right on this planet, and the sun was the right distance to allow for life to spark into existence, and start its long trek of evolution....


Second...No-one that I know of, who understands evolution, expresses any opinion on the creation of life. Not one "evolutionist" on this thread has attempted to argue creation. The simple truth is, that we dont know.

The thread has been hijacked by an individual who insists that life was not created on this planet at all, that it arrived here fully formed from elsewhere. His "proof" is as follows: (I will paraphrase)

1.The anteater eats ants (he refers to this as a "target food"
2. Humans do not have a target food.
3.The anteater is from here because it has a target food.
4. We are not from here because we dont.
5. we're not supposed to drink cows milk (the only reason for this is that its "cows mucus" and tooth doesnt seem to like that idea)
6. We would all be dead without medical intervention. (despite millions of "live" people who appear to have managed life without it)



what is it that is deciding to take into its shape and route of species, is it not what you would call will or intelligence, that drives every living being through their life, through eons of time, allowing their genealogical successors to gain the benefits of their toil and victory?


Now thats a good question, and this is where a lot of the sensible discussion (i.e. thoes not involving [DELETED]...hes like the candyman, dont use the name or he will appear)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





The thread has been hijacked by an individual who insists that life was not created on this planet at all, that it arrived here fully formed from elsewhere. His "proof" is as follows: (I will paraphrase)
That's interesting because I have never said that all life never started on this planet.




1.The anteater eats ants (he refers to this as a "target food"
Uh hu.




2. Humans do not have a target food.
True so far, no one has been able to successfully contest it.




3.The anteater is from here because it has a target food.
Its one of many of his attributes but yes.




4. We are not from here because we dont.
Yes I know its hard to understand but a species must have food.




5. we're not supposed to drink cows milk (the only reason for this is that its "cows mucus" and tooth doesnt seem to like that idea)
That's a cherry picked portion of a very large and complex picture, and its not just because I say so, its because the facts tell us so.




6. We would all be dead without medical intervention. (despite millions of "live" people who appear to have managed life without it)
There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty. Of course what everyone is blind to is that we don't know if they are autosomal dominant genes. Everyone on here argues with me that medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines.

I say, it sounds like CNN breaking news and they need to step up and let the medical community know about all this.




Now thats a good question, and this is where a lot of the sensible discussion (i.e. thoes not involving [DELETED]...hes like the candyman, dont use the name or he will appear)
I smell intervention LOL.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I like how you just conveniently add your own words to the definition to make it suit your argument. Nope sorry, your wrong, and I caught you trying to pull one over. There is no "scientific" and everyone knows the difference. So take your pseudo science elsewhere.

Sorry if you don’t like the definition of a scientific theory, but you don’t get to redefine it so you can argue against it. What I said is accurate and accepted by the scientific community as a description of what a scientific theory is.


As far as you continuously referencing my find on the virus, you know nothing about it, so it just shows your honest character and how your so quick to profile people without the possibility of knowing what your talking about.

It’s like all of your other claims -- unsubstantiated. And the lack of knowledge you keep openly displaying about how science works in general means it’s going to continue to be unsubstantiated.


I don't know what to tell you. I grabbed my boss, and had her read this so she could give me her definition and it appears we both agree. I think where the problem might be is that your mistaking a theory for a scientific theory. Your also totally dismissing the words hypothetical and postulated, I guess because you don't want to see or address them.

Then your boss is approximately as well educated as you are when it comes to science. Which is to say, she isn't.


Sure, you tout, but remember, these has already been explained and your profiling me again.

I don’t have to tout anything, you do it for me. Every time you misuse a word with a scientific definition or fail to accurately express a scientific concept, you do it for me.


Now just for giggles I went back and refreshed again on reading up on the term theory. Again, it also states that it is derived from speculation and contemplation.

Present your source for the definition of a scientific theory.


Itera, did you fail to take your meds today? I did not place hypothetical and theory in the same phrase, they were already there.

So you can show me where the phrase “hypothetical theory” appears on this page?


Well then you need to be the brave soul to step up and let them know they need to address it as such, rather than postulated, hypothetical theory's. IMO I think they did this for a reason, because they didn't want to lie.

Many have in the past and continue to today. Dawkins, Gould, every member of the USNAS, every member of the AAAS, the vast majority of the global scientific community...

You’re just being willfully blind, deaf, and dumb to it.


True but there is such a thing as a scientific theory or a scientific fact.

Yes, there are. And evolution is a scientific fact. And modern evolutionary synthesis is a scientific theory.


Maybe its because mine isn't hypothetical or postulated.

The existence of a virus would be a fact, not a theory, so your analogy is a failure.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


The thread has been hijacked by an individual who insists that life was not created on this planet at all, that it arrived here fully formed from elsewhere. His "proof" is as follows: (I will paraphrase)

That's interesting because I have never said that all life never started on this planet.


Fair comment, just us and some other as yet unidentifeid species which I guess is a claim yuo will make when somebody points out anoither animal, that in your world appears to have a target food




6. We would all be dead without medical intervention. (despite millions of "live" people who appear to have managed life without it)

There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty. Of course what everyone is blind to is that we don't know if they are autosomal dominant genes. Everyone on here argues with me that medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines.


An outright lie. No-one has made any such claim, if they had, i'm sure you could quote them. But you cant. Personaly, if i were accused of being a liar, I wouldnt care where the quote was that proved that I wasnt a liar, I would find it and post it. My guess is that your reply will be "that it was so long ago", "i cant go back" etc etc.

So theres a challenge, prove that you are not a liar, find the quote that anyone made that states that "medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines."


edit on 15-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You want to know what I think is going on , Ima....
Dear lord no. Not this, anything but this.


It is almost impossible to understand how these things could be in place without the intervention of some type of creator.
Especially when as tooth does, you close your mind to everything that shows his version of reality is that of a halfwit.


I don't say that with exaggeration
He really does not. You just wait and see how insane he is.


its really hard to understand almost every step of life without it.
Brace yourself, its coming. You will be shocked.


All the way down to the chemicals. Who made the chemicals, who made the complex chains that allow them to work in the way that they do. Who programmed the chains.
Now you would think a science master and the discoverer of an 'Arcane' virus would understand that evolution does not, and cannot explain creation. You would imagine this would sink in after being expalined this about every other page of this thread alone.


Anyhow. one thing that I often think about is the old saying which came first the chicken or the egg.
You have to go back about 20 - 30 pages to see where it was explained to him that the egg came first which after a major tantrum by tooth he claimed chickens may have been brought to earth as well. Humans clucky helper although eggs are not our 'target food' despite this.


But I do the same thing with a creator. Who made the creator. It really leaves me stumped.
This is his pretence that he is a thinker but actually when you have read enough of his garbage he has deep personality problems linked to anal probes and abduction.


I watched a program one time that said that planets are formed from gasses, and from what they can tell, there is just life on those planets.
This program that he never links to or backs up in anyway is a common line of tripe squirted out regulary like dhiorea. Not only is he the identifier of an arcane virus (he refuses to explain what that even means) he is also it seems is privy to information about life on other planets. He maintains that these planets also have a balanced eco system which ours does not because we are not from here.


Talk about freaky
I thought I was?


A joke was offered to me to see better what was happening.
Actually someone replied using a silly example to show how rediculous tooths veiws were. Tooths understanding of the written word is so poor that he believes it was friendly banter.


There is a giant celestial squid in the cosmos that poops out planets and life. All hail to Trevor the giant celestial squid.
This he also spews out every few pages and sadly. IS THE ONLY THING HE HAS LEARNED IN OVER 200 pages


edit on 15-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Hi Id, everyone.
Was wondering if you would like to chat about a programe I saw on TV.

It was called something like 'Anteaters prove mankind originated on earth.' It went on to show how this finding shattered the long held theory of a famous identifier of an Arcane virus.

It went on to explain ants society and the relationship with anteaters. Due to this huge discovery ants are now being called 'The Evolution Bug'.

I am sure also that next week there is a program on milk and honey and how certain historical documents put great importance the lands where these are found. Amazing.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty. Of course what everyone is blind to is that we don't know if they are autosomal dominant genes. Everyone on here argues with me that medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines.
This old rubbish again. Well I suppose it was ovedue an outing. You were stupid enough not to alter your pasted notes and again left it in


There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty
The very thing you acuse people of lying about when they quote it back to you.

Still my answer and question to that as always and I have no doubt will be ignored/dismissed/sidestepped.

If without medical intervention we cannot live passed puberty (Breeding age) explain the bushman??????????????


edit on 15-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 


We are making some progress - tooth admits multicellular evolution a possability!


Originally posted by idmonster
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans. I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years, and well earth hasn't been around that long so what does that tell you.


I missed this on first reading.

I am to understand that you DO believe in evolution as you stated above and that the difficulty you have with it is that you can not understand how it could occur within the finite timescale of planet earth?
edit on 14-2-2012 by idmonster because: zbellend



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Sorry if you don’t like the definition of a scientific theory, but you don’t get to redefine it so you can argue against it. What I said is accurate and accepted by the scientific community as a description of what a scientific theory is.
It just seems to be missing that little important word in front of it saying scientific.




It’s like all of your other claims -- unsubstantiated. And the lack of knowledge you keep openly displaying about how science works in general means it’s going to continue to be unsubstantiated.
And I'm suppose to take your word on this after your trying to convince me that hypothetical, postualted theorys are fact.

Sorry man I'm rolling.




Present your source for the definition of a scientific theory.
Google it, even wiki has a good one



The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".

From wiki en.wikipedia.org...

I think your english is very poor, and you need to go back to school.

Not that mine is any better but at least I don't boast about it.

Once again Hypothetsis is in the first sentance.




Many have in the past and continue to today. Dawkins, Gould, every member of the USNAS, every member of the AAAS, the vast majority of the global scientific community...
So now your turning around and admitting that it's listed as a hypothetical theory.




Yes, there are. And evolution is a scientific fact. And modern evolutionary synthesis is a scientific theory.
Neither of which are they listed as.




The existence of a virus would be a fact, not a theory, so your analogy is a failure.
Most are that obvious, you are correct but the type of virus I found doesn't apply in that way, it is very different.


Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

edit on 15-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Fair comment, just us and some other as yet unidentifeid species which I guess is a claim yuo will make when somebody points out anoither animal, that in your world appears to have a target food
The fact is that non indiginious species might be able to be identified in part based on the lack of target food, in addition to them possibly being a scavenger.




An outright lie. No-one has made any such claim, if they had, i'm sure you could quote them. But you cant. Personaly, if i were accused of being a liar, I wouldnt care where the quote was that proved that I wasnt a liar, I would find it and post it. My guess is that your reply will be "that it was so long ago", "i cant go back" etc etc.
No my guess is that even if I did post proof you would do nothing but try to discredit it after the fact but here you go, eat up.

www.youtube.com...




So theres a challenge, prove that you are not a liar, find the quote that anyone made that states that "medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines."
Well colin is just one, but others agree with him. He keeps referring to he bushman as proof that we don't need vaccines, and I always tell him he needs to let doctors know this.


edit on 15-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Oh no Id. You are suffering from Tooth ache. Really read what he wrote carefully.


I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans.


I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years




I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans.
101 tooth. Apes mutating into humans shows no advancement at all.


I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years
He uses this to show we are not from here and not as an acceptance evolution may occur


and well earth hasn't been around that long so what does that tell you.
Here's his punch line. Same old same old



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Just remember that this is all coming from a guy that stakes a claim about the non use of question marks as being totally sensible.
A guy that incorrectly answers my questions and then argues they are valid.
When I asked for one single example of species that has a natural un provoked relationship with man, he gives me the house sparrow. So a sparrow has a relationship with our homes so he takes it as though that includes us.

Leaving feed at your door, to purposly attract field mice does NOT cause evolution so that those mice turn into door mice.
Sorry colin, I made it up and you fell in it.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 230  231  232    234  235  236 >>

log in

join