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: 250
31
<< 247  248  249    251  252  253 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   


Far too much time and attention has been given to this person, and IMO its time to move on and ignore him.

Is this the best the evolution deniers have got to offer? 60% of the country make this claim, and the very they have to offer (on ATS at least) is someone claiming we are all actually aliens and this then disproves evolution?

really?

REALLY?




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


I'm sorry but this new link you sent me, as nice and informative as it is, also appears to be written by an evolutionist according to the options at the bottom of the page.


So, you won't even pay attention to it. You don't have to agree with it for Christ's sake! You just have to read the damn thing and understand evolution! There are more links on the side of the one I provided that help explain the way scientists currently understand evolution. Read them or I'll say very nasty things to you in the future.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The question is should they have to. I think you have the global access backwards, it was the need that drove that access.

Not true. It is the demand that drove us to global food access, and the ability to make money off of that system. Humans have lived off the earth for at least 100,000 years, they did not always have global access to whatever food they want and survived just fine, hence you and me are here to talk about it. This is hard evidence against your theory.



Well that's a good point but you do also have to take into account the fact that when things are out of balance (which they are in a bad way right now). It's when things are out of balance that everything else can be off as well.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about



That's because there were many things also brought to earth to help us as well. But with that keep in mind that its also written that those things that were brought to earth for us, are not from our home, so they are not part of our intended diet.

That's BS, because most mammals on earth eat the same stuff. Why bring humans to earth with a specialized food supply, when they can live perfectly fine off the earth? It makes no sense at all.



Which is somewhat true, but our need for calcium actually goes up with age.

Who cares? You could probably argue that for any animal that has bones.



I tend to believe in more strict circumstances. From a creationist point of view, I look at it like this, if someone was smart enough to make us, then they would also be smart enough to make a planet and food to accommodate us as well.

So you admit that your argument about target food is bunk. That's good. Now it's back to appealing to magic and claiming the food was all put here as well. Keep piling those assumptions on. The earth is perfectly suited for us and you keep ignoring it, and every time you get proven wrong you resort to complete guesswork. You need to have a little consistency with your theory. Either the earth was created and all life along with it, or the earth was already here with life on it when humans were allegedly brought here. I thought the latter was what you believed, but it seems like you're now saying that all life, or at least all mammals were brought here? We can survive on the same thing as most mammals, so they'd have to be brought here as well. But wait, a lot of mammals also eat plants, so according to your theory the plants clearly are not from here, and must have been brought over with the big package of humanity.



Well I never met anyone that didn't want to be healthy, but I think your confusing foods we can get by on for a short time with an acceptable diet.

You've never seen an overweight person before? I'm not confusing anything. Everything I said can be backed up by facts. Besides in 3rd world countries, diet is a choice for the majority of people, plain and simple. Knowledge is out there to learn about the healthiest way to eat, but many people still choose to eat at Mcdonalds every day. It's not about survival with food for us anymore. We have surpassed that as a species. Cooking is more like an art form now.



So if your implying that cows milk was meant for us, isn't that the same as saying that our food is supposed to make us sick?


I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying we have a large selection of foods we can eat to be healthy, but don't need a huge variety. That is outright false. Stop confusing capitalism with dietary needs.



Which is a dead on clue that we shouldn't have to cook our food. But in situations where we have to, it becomes a question of weather or not we are supposed to be eating that food. Again, its because its not our food.

I hate to break it to you but humans have been cooking food going back at least 2 million years to our ancestors, since they invented fire. We don't have to cook all foods, but we are smart enough to know that its risky to eat raw chicken or pork. Sure, you could probably get away with doing it, and will probably survive, but it's a risk. Cooking our food is part of the reason our population is so high. Again is shows that our intelligence is the main reason behind our success as a species.


Your talking about our lifestyle, I'm talking about evolutionary changes.

No I'm not. I'm talking precisely about evolutionary changes combined with genetic variance. You need to let this argument go, because you are clearly wrong and is has been demonstrated numerous times.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





ry that with a goldfish. I promise you the goldfish and the plant will both die.
no it has to be a specific type of plant and specific type of fish, I don't remember what types, just that I have seen them.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





So, you won't even pay attention to it. You don't have to agree with it for Christ's sake! You just have to read the damn thing and understand evolution! There are more links on the side of the one I provided that help explain the way scientists currently understand evolution. Read them or I'll say very nasty things to you in the future
Of course its going to say what you want it to, its written by evolutionists.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


But they are adapting right?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Not true. It is the demand that drove us to global food access, and the ability to make money off of that system. Humans have lived off the earth for at least 100,000 years, they did not always have global access to whatever food they want and survived just fine, hence you and me are here to talk about it. This is hard evidence against your theory.
Not necessarly. It is possible that we were just malnourished and trying to get our needs from other sources, as though we were barley getting by.




That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about
I know thats not what your talking about, but that is whats causing the problem. This isn't a quick fix problem its very in depth.




That's BS, because most mammals on earth eat the same stuff. Why bring humans to earth with a specialized food supply, when they can live perfectly fine off the earth? It makes no sense at all.
Well first of all I'm not sure that we can live perfectly fine with whats provided. One thing is for sure, do to this set back its not easy.




Who cares? You could probably argue that for any animal that has bones.
What do you mean who cares, what are you going to do? Starve?




So you admit that your argument about target food is bunk. That's good. Now it's back to appealing to magic and claiming the food was all put here as well.
Well thats because your assuing that I believe that god made us, which it's allready been proven that he hasn't. Had you of read the link on mtDNA or mitocondrial eve, you would see that we have a common ancestor from 200,000 years which is a conflict with god creating us just 10,000 years ago.




Keep piling those assumptions on. The earth is perfectly suited for us and you keep ignoring it, and every time you get proven wrong you resort to complete guesswork.
There is no guesswork and I still stand undisputed in this. We are not from here, unless you beleive that we are suppose to spend all of our lives just getting by and not growing.




You need to have a little consistency with your theory. Either the earth was created and all life along with it, or the earth was already here with life on it when humans were allegedly brought here. I thought the latter was what you believed, but it seems like you're now saying that all life, or at least all mammals were brought here?
I don't know about all, and I haven't given much time into seeing what else was brought here. I think it's important to keep open as the bible does state that it happened.




You've never seen an overweight person before? I'm not confusing anything. Everything I said can be backed up by facts. Diet is a choice these days.
and its usually a poor one because of the lack of the needed options. The food we need is simply not here.




I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying we have a large selection of foods we can eat to be healthy, but don't need a huge variety. That is outright false. Stop confusion capitalism with dietary needs.
As long as you stop confusing availability with choices.




I hate to break it to you but humans have been cooking food going back at least 2 million years to our ancestors,
So that tells us we have been out of our diet for at least that long.




We don't have to cook all foods, but we are smart enough to know that its risky to eat raw chicken or pork.
Now imagine that, eating food that we need, is risky, ever wonder why that is?




Sure, you could probably get away with doing it, and will probably survive, but it's a risk. Cooking our food is part of the reason our population is so high. Again is shows that our intelligence is the main reason behind our success as a species.
Do other species on this planet face the same risk? No they don't.




No I'm not. Stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying. I'm talking about precisely evolutionary changes. Have you not read this entire thread? You need to let this argument go, because you are clearly wrong and is has been demonstrated numerous times
By who?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Isn't it funny how we have SO MANY food choices, and still we have people that are unhealthy. It's not because we choose to eat poorly, its because the right choices are missing from our diet. This is also why we have mega suppliment stores, Why we have diabetes, and the other umpteen eating disorders. Oh sure some of the problem is poor choices, but some of it stems from not having the choices we need. They simply aren't there.

Open your eyes, open your mind, are you not realizing that this is a wake up call, and your ignoring it. Why do we have dieticians, trainers, weight control programs?

If we had the food we were suppose to be eating to begin with, we wouldnt have ventured out of the box to make more food that eneded up being bad for us moreso.

Your putting the cart before the horse and missing the whole point. There would not have ever of been a reason to create bad food had we of had the food we needed to begin with.
Had we of had access to our needed food, we would fist of all be healthy, not hungry, not overweight, not underweight, not sickly.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





But they are adapting right?
Sure but adaptation is the bi-product of evolution failing.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Sure but adaptation is the bi-product of evolution failing.


Do explain.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Tooth, I'm not going to go line for line with you. You are diverting my main point away, which is that a large portion of mammals on earth need virtually the same nutrients that we do to survive. Dietary diversity is something that only humans have. Most animals eat what is available to them in their respective environments, and humans also did this for a long time. How is it we are not from here when we have similar dietary requirements as so many other mammals on earth, not to mention that plenty of predators could survive eating a human.



Well first of all I'm not sure that we can live perfectly fine with whats provided. One thing is for sure, do to this set back its not easy.

and its usually a poor one because of the lack of the needed options. The food we need is simply not here.

We CAN live perfectly fine with what's provided! It's proven. Some people live well over 100 years. Not too many animals can do that. Of course the food is here, if it wasn't, we'd be extinct.



Had you of read the link on mtDNA or mitocondrial eve, you would see that we have a common ancestor from 200,000 years which is a conflict with god creating us just 10,000 years ago.

Funny it seems like you're arguing the opposite of that, claiming that humans have not evolved at all in 200,000 years. Obviously the god thing never happened. DNA altering is possible, but that's pretty much it.



Do other species on this planet face the same risk? No they don't.

Yes they do. I'm pretty sure Colin already debunked you on this one. Disease is a risk amongst pretty much all mammals. Dogs can get salmonella from raw infected foods just like humans can. Almost any warm blooded mammal can get it. So again, for your theory to be right, all other mammals must not be from here.


Open your eyes, open your mind, are you not realizing that this is a wake up call, and your ignoring it. Why do we have dieticians, trainers, weight control programs?

Humans have these as luxuries. They certainly are not required to succeed or survive.


There would not have ever of been a reason to create bad food had we of had the food we needed to begin with.

Because it tastes good?
edit on 21-2-2012 by Barcs because: you're



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Because this is probably the closest you have come to a discussion.


There are isolated examples of such where you can buy a sealed fish tank that has one fish and one plant combined in water. All you have to do is supply the sunlight for the plant to grow. In a balanced system the fish eats the plant, and his waste feeds the plant, along with the sunlight. Quite blowing smoke man.
Do you have control over the sunlight?
The winter sun will put less energy into the tank so the plant will grow less meaning there is not enough food to feed the fish. (your eco system is already out of balance). The fish will crap less meaning there is less fertiliser for the plant. Both will weaken and this means even less food for the fish. The fish dies. So much for balance.

The summer sun. This puts more energy into the tank. The plant grows vigerously. The fish has loads of food. craps alot. The plant grows even faster taking up all the room in the tank eventually choking the tank so much the fish dies. Where is your balance? This is why people with fish tanks have to clean them.

We dont even have the ability for the fish to breed or the plant to breed and if you did your balance in the tank would shift even more wildly. No predation, no competition. Your balanced eco system is not only found no where it is not balanced at all, never was.

You have not thought about algea that grows in water due to sunlight. The water quality due to fish crap, decaying plant and decaying algea. Bacteria.The tempreature of the room the tank is in. I guess if I thought long enough I could factor in even more variables to your fish tank, fish and plant.

As I said no such thing as a balanced eco system. The energy in and the energy out is never a constant. The life within it is never a constant and so balance in never reached. Adjustments need to be continually made.

If you had read the link you provided you would/should know this. READ IT.

Edit Missed this


None of which disproves a balance.
So now you are debunking your own links evidence. Really how stupid are you?

Edit Before you waste time posting this is a sealed tank. You still lose. If the fish eats the plant he gets no oxygen. If he does not eat the plant he starves. Which is ok because the plant will kill him when the sun goes down when it uses oxygen and emits carbon dioxide long before the fish starves.



edit on 21-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





ry that with a goldfish. I promise you the goldfish and the plant will both die.
no it has to be a specific type of plant and specific type of fish, I don't remember what types, just that I have seen them.
Here you go again. Change the criteria when your question fails.

You wrote tank, fish and plant. Someone points out in reality the fish dies and now you claim a certain typ of fish and a certain type of plant but cant remember what they are. When that is challenged you will claim a certain type of tank and when that in turn is challenged you will claim you are right everyone else is wrong and try to wiggle away.

You are just a very dishonest person.

Here from a post by you


So where do we go from here. I think educating people is important. That's perhaps what I'm trying to do here. Some people are down right incredulous but I still try.
You have no education yourself yet you believe your mission is to educate


Do you see yourself as a modern day John the Baptise? You really are deluded to the nth degree. Larry the Baptise. It has a ring to it.


edit on 21-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369


Far too much time and attention has been given to this person, and IMO its time to move on and ignore him.

Is this the best the evolution deniers have got to offer? 60% of the country make this claim, and the very they have to offer (on ATS at least) is someone claiming we are all actually aliens and this then disproves evolution?

really?

REALLY?


Your avatar is an alien...you're just trying to cover up the truth!! Admit it, you're one of those aliens!!


Also, lol@tooth for disbelieving Berkeley University when it comes to science...but at the same time buying into the claims of some random unqualified guy who never bothered to back up any of his claims with real evidence and data

edit on 21-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Here you go again. Change the criteria when your question fails.

You wrote tank, fish and plant. Someone points out in reality the fish dies and now you claim a certain typ of fish and a certain type of plant but cant remember what they are. When that is challenged you will claim a certain type of tank and when that in turn is challenged you will claim you are right everyone else is wrong and try to wiggle away.

You are just a very dishonest person.

Here from a post by you
Are you for real? You don't think you can just take any fish with any plant and make them into an eco tank do you?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You have no education yourself yet you believe your mission is to educate
I don't think my mission is failing, after all you are pretty much able to quote me on understanding. I think if there is any failing it might be on your end.




Do you see yourself as a modern day John the Baptise? You really are deluded to the nth degree. Larry the Baptise. It has a ring to it
Carry on Pete.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Are you for real? You don't think you can just take any fish with any plant and make them into an eco tank do you?
I see you skipped my first post. Not going to comment on that one then. Why am I not surprised.

You are the one that made up the scenario. I explained why it will not work and why you never reached a balanced eco system and now you run away. Brilliant.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





But they are adapting right?
Sure but adaptation is the bi-product of evolution failing.



Okay, well when I think of evolution, I think adaptation. That's how we evolve, adapting is part of the process. Not only do we adapt to our environment, we adapt sexually as well, which would explain different colors and spots and such on animals. When you say adaptation is not part of evolution, and everyone else says it is, we aren't having shared meaning when we are communicating. That is why we will never agree, agree?

One thing to clear up, that I haven't thought about, maybe someone here can help me answer.

How did birds or any flying animal for that matter develop wings? Wouldn't there have to be a long period of time where the wing is not quite a wing, and not quite a hand or arm? This would mean that it would essentially be useless, since you can't fly or use it like a hand. Can someone explain this to me?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't think my mission is failing, after all you are pretty much able to quote me on understanding. I think if there is any failing it might be on your end.
You dont even deny you see spreading your nonsense as a mission. I understand the idiocy you preach because you repeat the same rubbish page after page. That is how I know it is utter garbage.

The only things your mission has achieved is proving your low intelligence. Your dishonesty and complete self delusion. Well done.
edit on 21-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Do you have control over the sunlight?
Depends on the context. I think we can block it at times, but there is no way to aquire it unaturaly other than lights.




Do you have control over the sunlight?
The winter sun will put less energy into the tank so the plant will grow less meaning there is not enough food to feed the fish. (your eco system is already out of balance). The fish will crap less meaning there is less fertiliser for the plant. Both will weaken and this means even less food for the fish. The fish dies. So much for balance.
Wow, and I thought I overavnalize. Nope, they have it down to a science and it works. Here are some you can buy right now...
www.eco-sphere.com...
www.youtube.com...

Here is the patent on the idea.
www.google.com...
Heres the Wiki on the idea.
en.wikipedia.org...(aquarium)

They are rare however, and I only found a few sites that sell them.




The summer sun. This puts more energy into the tank. The plant grows vigerously. The fish has loads of food. craps alot. The plant grows even faster taking up all the room in the tank eventually choking the tank so much the fish dies. Where is your balance? This is why people with fish tanks have to clean them.
I think less sun hitting the water causes a reaction as well, as in shade from the plant.




We dont even have the ability for the fish to breed or the plant to breed and if you did your balance in the tank would shift even more wildly. No predation, no competition. Your balanced eco system is not only found no where it is not balanced at all, never was.
I didn't offer this to explain how the world works, even though it's exaclty how it works, its on a very small scale.




You have not thought about algea that grows in water due to sunlight. The water quality due to fish crap, decaying plant and decaying algea. Bacteria.The tempreature of the room the tank is in. I guess if I thought long enough I could factor in even more variables to your fish tank, fish and plant.
Those are not factors because of this type of balance. I do however see your point and again its all just on a grander scale.




As I said no such thing as a balanced eco system. The energy in and the energy out is never a constant. The life within it is never a constant and so balance in never reached. Adjustments need to be continually made.

If you had read the link you provided you would/should know this. READ IT.

Edit Missed this
Well then I guess this is yet another one you need to contact and let them know that this product they are selling will never work.

I don't know about you DR Colin, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
The doctors are wrong, we don't need there help with medical intervention, and you need to break this concearning news to them. Just think you could break the world wide issue of medical cost insurance for all of us.
You also claim that the Bible, Sitchen, Von Daniken and Pye are all fruadsters, and you need to also let them know they are all on the wrong track and you have proof.
Now you inform me there is no such thing as a balanced tank. You need to contact these vendors and let them know they are selling false promises.
You really have your work cut out for you Doctor Colin.

Oh and I almost forgot about house sparrow, and apes and wolves being our closest friends, and we need to recognize that meaningful relationship.
Nevermind how I just watched a video about how wolves have attacked humans and injured many of us. I guess it must have been our fault.
edit on 21-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 247  248  249    251  252  253 >>

log in

join