Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

Colin how many times do I have to explain to your ignoramis mind that there is no comparison.

Our advanced technology and use of chemicals is not the same as what ants do in the wild. FYI news cast for you Colin, we ARE NOT IN THE WILD and we seperate ourselfs from the wild becuase we don't fit in.

How many times do I have to tell you that your opinions mean nothing. You need to address the points I made in my post not issue one of your many edicts from a point of ignorance.

I showed the simularities you need to explain why they do not count and not in the childish way you have above.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well good Colin then you can sleep next to it at night and write essays about it.

It does not occur to you to read it yourself then? You again want others to do the research you are too lazy to do. I think I will let you wallow in ignorance as you seem so intent on doing.

The facts are obvious in whats missing.

So you do not accept what you say are theories and postulation yet will accept missng evidence as evidence when it suits your argument. How even handed. How very you.

There is nothing actually that says we do fit in.

There is nothing that says we dont. Masses that say we do.

I have challenged anyone to prove differently. And no Colin a little bird that builds homes in our homes is not proof. We have no relation to anything here, and nothing here has any relation to us here.

But that little bird bothers you doesnt it. It bothers you because it is anther time you were shown to be completely wrong. Again the burden of proof is yours.

We would not be missed if we left this planet and in fact the planet is rejecting us. We don't even have our proper food to eat here. Has allready been disscused on here. Lack of proper food. Lack of any natural connection with other life here. Lack of any connection with the planet aside from water and air.

Proved wrong so many times. You will not get this drivel accepted just because you repeat it endlessly.

So just sit back in your man made home Colin, with your man made electricty, man made heat, man made AC, man made processed food, man made piped water and sewer, and keep telling yourself how much this planet accepts you just the way you are. IDIOT!

Yes man made using the physics and materials of THIS planet. So wallow in ignorance Pinocchio and repeat your tall tales and grow that nose.

reply to post by itsthetooth


www.notmilk.com...

Read it. Here's an excerpt:

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Good post! Yes, I like the idea of a comet impact, perhaps even one that contained ocean water. We know it's possible. I'm not sure if it would flood the entire planet, but there's no question, it would definitely effect a lot of places. The Mayans talk about the several destructions of the world. Maybe that crazy impact had something to do with the last glacial period ending, or even made it that much worse, causing Neanderthal extinction.

edit on 12-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Thanks Barcs. I was a little hesitant in writing that--I thought for sure everyone was going to think I'm nuts. Not that you don't already, but still!

I've always liked mythology and I'm convinced that there's something very real behind the myths of a flood. As you say, it wouldn't cover the whole world at once, but various regions would be affected in different ways. The coasts with tsunamis--which would be absolutely enormous, by the way. Physics isn't my thing, but as I understand it, the height of the tsunami would be equal to the depth of the water in which the comet impacted due to the potential energy. Can you imagine the destruction it must have wrought? Australia, India, the Americas (North and South), the British Isles, the Pacific islands. And further inland, deep inside the continents like Asia, it would be constant rain.

What's interesting about the end of the Ice Age is that the world got very, very cold again around 7500 BC. All agriculture stopped, then we went through a period of global warming to the point we now call it the Climatic Optimum, and it's been downhill ever since. (AGW my butt. The 5000 year trend is downward. Each successive warm period after the optimum has gotten cooler and shorter than the last.)

Here's the kicker, though. There is another nitric acid spike at around 3100 BC with another disruption in the climate. Make of that one what you will.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Maybe you should restudy scientific evidence which points to a possibility of a global event which would be portrayed as a great flood. Look at all the evidence, not what you wish to see. It's not just the bible and never has been just the bible that talks about this event.

The Biblical story is based on the Sumerian, which was probably based on something even older. So it's not even an original story. It's several traditions in one.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Doesn't mean the information was wrong just because it was borrowed. I don't think the whole world was effected. A person may have seen that this big catastrophe destroyed everything they saw and assumed it was the whole world. Something that spanned two or three continents. Something big happened, that's the important thing. Something big enough to possibly push a ship onto a mountain. Or did the mountain actually rise to meet the ship. Timing this event is impossible, it could have been passed down verbally for hundreds of generations before being written. I'm not very religious but am spiritual, same thing without the church. I love studying science but also study all history because history is part of science.

I hate when people misinterpret evidence or deny it's existence because it conflicts with their knowledge or beliefs. That is the thing that saddens me so much about this world. People are so blind.

reply to post by rickymouse
The way I interpret the world wide flood is I liken it to the world series baseball cup. Each civilisation has a flood story because floods are not that uncommon. Each civilisation calls it a world flood from a centralist view. Those with an agenda try to say all the stories relate to the same flood. There is no evidence for it.

There were definitely major floods in pre history. The English Channel, Black sea, Med to name a few but none covered the whole planet, ever. Such an event would leave a scar. It has not.

Originally posted by rickymouse


Doesn't mean the information was wrong just because it was borrowed. I don't think the whole world was effected. A person may have seen that this big catastrophe destroyed everything they saw and assumed it was the whole world. Something that spanned two or three continents. Something big happened, that's the important thing. Something big enough to possibly push a ship onto a mountain.

I don't know if I can go along with that idea. First, it would have to be launched as the wave was coming. We know how quickly tsunamis hit the coast, and even now we have little to no warning as we saw with Indonesia and Japan. And those would be small waves in comparison. How would they have know it was coming? And even if they did know, there wouldn't be enough time.

Or did the mountain actually rise to meet the ship.

How would that happen, exactly?

Timing this event is impossible, it could have been passed down verbally for hundreds of generations before being written. I'm not very religious but am spiritual, same thing without the church. I love studying science but also study all history because history is part of science.

IMO there are a couple of choices: 3100 BC, sometime around 8000 BC, or even earlier, around 10,000 BC. I've wondered if maybe the jumpstart in agriculture on both sides of the world wasn't born of necessity--there just wasn't enough food and they had to do something or starve. Nothing drives innovation like sheer necessity.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by rickymouse

 

The way I interpret the world wide flood is I liken it to the world series baseball cup. Each civilisation has a flood story because floods are not that uncommon. Each civilisation calls it a world flood from a centralist view. Those with an agenda try to say all the stories relate to the same flood. There is no evidence for it.

There were definitely major floods in pre history. The English Channel, Black sea, Med to name a few but none covered the whole planet, ever. Such an event would leave a scar. It has not.

I can go along with this. I recently read a book on the Black Sea flood by Ryan and Pittman. It's pretty old as far as books go, but they just might be right.

Let's not forget the North Sea, too, or the Irish Sea. They've found Neanderthal tools at the bottom of the North Sea.

reply to post by colin42


There is also no evidence anywhere that these writings are not correct. You have to prove a theory wrong to discount the evidence. You have to understand that science has become corrupted by some.

Paranormal is not unreal, it's understanding is not yet known. You cannot discount it because there is no evidence yet or nothing known to compare it to. To study it you have to try to understand why it is perceived as it is and what causes the perception. Then it becomes part of scientific understanding. Then it is no longer Paranormal. I use Paranormal as an example, I hope you don't think I am off topic.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

www.notmilk.com...

Read it. Here's an excerpt:

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.

Yep, lactose intolerance. A huge portion of the population still can't digest cow's milk, 8000 years after the fact. And for those who can drink it, many of them lose their ability to digest lactose as they get older.

We're the only mammal that drinks milk of any kind after the age of weaning. In the Middle Ages, the water was so contaminated that the wealthy drank only milk, wine, or beer/ale. To do otherwise was to risk dying.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Ha Ha. I don.t have to go search the net for evidence. I stated there was possible evidence. You, on the other hand, stated that there was absolutely no evidence which is not a practice of true science. You stated the fact, you now have to prove it. I know the game MrXYZ, I don't intimidate easily

In science you don't prove a negative. You make the assertion that a global flood happened, so it's up to you to provide proof. You'll fail though as there is only proof of local floods at different points in time, and no proof for a global flood

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by colin42

 

There is also no evidence anywhere that these writings are not correct. You have to prove a theory wrong to discount the evidence. You have to understand that science has become corrupted by some.

I'm going to echo Mr. XYZ here and say you can't prove a negative. It would be up to the person making the claim that it IS true to prove it--it's called burden of proof. For example, I can believe that, based on sources from all over the world and not the Bible, that something happened. But so long after the fact, we'll probably never know for sure and it is essentially unprovable. I know it and from that angle I'll never be right. I can only hope that science will eventually show conclusively that something did happen that affected a big part of the globe--independent of myth and legend.

reply to post by HappyBunny
Happy we need to qualify that remark about drinking water in the middle ages or it will be cited as proof we do not fit.

I am sure you will confirm that drinking water during this time was contaminated by lack of sewer systems and polution by animals.

reply to post by MrXYZ


No real scientist would state there was no flood that covered the earth. There is no proof that there was not one. There is evidence that there was one in writings but writings are perceptions. So there is no real proof that there was a flood either. There is no yes or no to this thing, if I were to have to choose I would choose to say it is probable that there was some kind of huge event that happened and it was quick. I won't put myself on either side of this but will state that either could be right. To state either one is true and one is false would be unwise or irrational and constitutes chasing a belief and not fact.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Happy we need to qualify that remark about drinking water in the middle ages or it will be cited as proof we do not fit.

I am sure you will confirm that drinking water during this time was contaminated by lack of sewer systems and polution by animals.

Eek, my bad!

But yes, until the early 20th century things were pretty filthy and unsanitary. Some parts of the world still don't have sewage systems and people die by the thousands from cholera, typhoid, polio, parasitic disease, the list goes on. SARS is a waterborne illness, as a matter of fact.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No real scientist would state there was no flood that covered the earth. There is no proof that there was not one.

Argument from ignorance. Sorry, but there it is. That's like saying that just because there's no proof God doesn't exist, he does.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No real scientist would state there was no flood that covered the earth. There is no proof that there was not one. There is evidence that there was one in writings but writings are perceptions. So there is no real proof that there was a flood either. There is no yes or no to this thing, if I were to have to choose I would choose to say it is probable that there was some kind of huge event that happened and it was quick. I won't put myself on either side of this but will state that either could be right. To state either one is true and one is false would be unwise or irrational and constitutes chasing a belief and not fact.

Incorrect, no real scientist would claim the global flood happened because IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.[2][3] Rain appears when the air can no longer support water in the vapour phase and it becomes saturated. Normally, the atmosphere is on the brink of saturation, and the variations in temperature and pressure caused by weather fronts are capable of altering the threshold at which precipitation will form quite easily. What about the amount of water vapor suspended in air needed for the 4.5 billion cubic meters of water needed for the global flood? The water vapour currently in the air is only around 2-3% on average, with a maximum of of 4% limited by temperature and pressure.[4] The change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapour for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide[5] - would have rendered the air unbreathable.

Bolded the important part. Full link highlighting what a blunder that global flood is can be found here: LINK

I'm baffled that in the 21st century people are still falling for stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong...and only because their faith has brainwashed them to the point where they can't accept reality anymore. Really quite sad

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No real scientist would state there was no flood that covered the earth. There is no proof that there was not one. There is evidence that there was one in writings but writings are perceptions. So there is no real proof that there was a flood either. There is no yes or no to this thing, if I were to have to choose I would choose to say it is probable that there was some kind of huge event that happened and it was quick. I won't put myself on either side of this but will state that either could be right. To state either one is true and one is false would be unwise or irrational and constitutes chasing a belief and not fact.

Incorrect, no real scientist would claim the global flood happened because IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.[2][3] Rain appears when the air can no longer support water in the vapour phase and it becomes saturated. Normally, the atmosphere is on the brink of saturation, and the variations in temperature and pressure caused by weather fronts are capable of altering the threshold at which precipitation will form quite easily. What about the amount of water vapor suspended in air needed for the 4.5 billion cubic meters of water needed for the global flood? The water vapour currently in the air is only around 2-3% on average, with a maximum of of 4% limited by temperature and pressure.[4] The change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapour for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide[5] - would have rendered the air unbreathable.

Bolded the important part. Full link highlighting what a blunder that global flood is can be found here: LINK

I'm baffled that in the 21st century people are still falling for stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong...and only because their faith has brainwashed them to the point where they can't accept reality anymore. Really quite sad

Not sure I should be quoting you as it really doesn't have anything to do with your post, but...from Popular Science today:

www.popsci.com...

Looking for the paper now. It's in PNAS.


ETA: Here's the link, but I keep getting an error message.

www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/01/1110614109.full.pdf+html

reply to post by HappyBunny


Asteroid impacts like that happen every few millennia. Most asteroids get taken out by Jupiter's massive gravitation, but some make it all the way to earth depending on their angle.

The thing is, even if a massive asteroid like that hit the ocean, it would simply result in a Tsunami, and we all know that those don't result in medium to long term floods like told in the bible. Plus, they don't effect the entire world either.

Interesting article, and it explains a lot...but doesn't really have anything to do with that silly global flood story.

The entire flood thing is off topic anyway, it's just a means of showing that people using the bible as evidence are misguided given it gets so much demonstrably wrong...like the global flood.

By the way, I hope you read the hilarious comments below that article...they're full of pseudo-science and they're highly entertaining

The Ancient Extraterrestrial Aliens Annunaki were caring for and observing the humans on Earth. They see this asteroid heading for Earth they told Noah prepare and carry all he could in preparation, animals included. The Annunaki had their private island cities on Earth too. Atlantis was one of these cities and was flooded and sank when the asteroid hit Earth. About 10,000 years ago, the oldest culture in the world was created, the Sumerians. The Ancient Extraterrestrial Aliens Annunaki helps us humans and mined for gold in the process. Once the Annunaki acquired enough gold, they left us humans with some small knowledge of language, math and the calendars.