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: 288
31
<< 285  286  287    289  290  291 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
And as usual your still missing the point, why did we turn to cows milk to begin with?




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Being one that studies science a lot, I find it kind of boring. I feel like I cannot take sides in issues like this because there is no real proof either way. I know that people interpret evidence to suit their needs and that proof usually is acquired under controlled conditions that don't naturally occur in a chaotic world. To say something doesn't exist is just as flawed as saying it does exist if there is no evidence either way.

Go back to the beginning. Does it really matter if there was a flood or not? Not really. Debating this is interesting conversation but in essence it really has no importance except to warn us that earth can unleash some fury if conditions are right. Did some religion take credit for this natural event? Yes. Was the overall reasoning of what they perceived about what caused it wrong? Not really People saw corruption and deceit everywhere. These Conditions exist today and we are also are dealing with these on this site. Maybe the people who created this were trying to show people that these things were not right and tied it to a natural event so people would follow good instead of deceit and corruption. So is my logic wrong? Yes if you desire deceit and corruption as the basis of your life it will not fit in at all.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The large majority on this planet didn't until very recently. The reason it's a popular source of calcium is that it's so readily available, that's all. As mentioned earlier, there's tons of other sources of calcium, not just milk. In other parts of the world those sources are often more used than cow milk. There are no cows in the Amazon for example, yet people still get enough calcium.

In short, your assertion that a % of humans drinking milk is somehow proof that humans "don't fit in" is beyond laughable.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
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.


Yes, I know that.


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.


No, but the rain afterwards would. Between the nitric acid, and increase in CO2, and the destruction of the ozone layer, it wouldn't be too pleasant for a few years.

Just to be clear on my position on this: There's no way a global flood happened. It's a closed system and it's just not possible. However, a displacement of the existing water by whatever mechanism that caused tsunamis and lots and lots of acid rain, and later global warming, is very well within the bounds of possibility.


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


I know, I just thought it was interesting consider we were discussing comets.



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


About the Annunaki or however you spell it? Yeah, with people like that in some scientists' corners it's no wonder they're afraid to say what they really think.



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.

edit on 13-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I think my dad wrote that.
He buys into that hook. line, and sinker, which is pretty disappointing considering his intelligence.

And I think we've derailed the discussion enough!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Your "logic" is wrong because as the link I posted clearly shows, it's physically impossible to have a global flood on this planet. Yet you continue to imply it's a real possibility...when it's DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE.

And it IS relevant because billions of people base their entire belief on a book that has a TON of sections that are demonstrably wrong...like that silly global flood story. Think about it!! Those people base their opinions about things on a FICTIONAL book!!

That's like saying "I believe XYZ because in that Harry Potter book it says...", it's crazy, especially in the 21st century when scientific knowledge is so readily available thanks to the Internet.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
And as usual your still missing the point, why did we turn to cows milk to begin with?


As usual, you weren't paying attention. I explained that a long time ago and reiterated it a few posts down from that one.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 
I agree with you about circular arguments which is why my OP asked those that say evolution is wrong to discuss diversity without it. Not a challenge but an attempt to discuss alternatives but none seem to have been put forwards.

This obsession with human evolution whilst ignoring the rest of life shows the argument about evolution has more to do with bruised egos when being told we are part of the primate family and not gods chosen poodle.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by rickymouse
 
I agree with you about circular arguments which is why my OP asked those that say evolution is wrong to discuss diversity without it. Not a challenge but an attempt to discuss alternatives but none seem to have been put forwards.


Well, from where I'm sitting, that's because there is no other mechanism that explains diversity. The Anti's and Creationists haven't put up and alternative hypothesis that any of us can take seriously.


This obsession with human evolution whilst ignoring the rest of life shows the argument about evolution has more to do with bruised egos when being told we are part of the primate family and not gods chosen poodle.


Spot on. It's anthropocentricism, pure and simple. They don't realize that we aren't the pinnacle of anything, we're not the end result of anything, and our existence certainly wasn't pre-ordained.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Calcium is an antidote for many things and availability of it is crucial. Milk just happened to be handy, it also was a good source of fats that humans need, or butter. Most people used to give skim milk to the pigs and take the cream and butter till recently(100 yrs). Occasionally drinking a glass or putting it in the grains or basically cereal to neutralize some of the chemistry. They didn't know about chemistry, they just knew you don't seem to get sick. It works by neutralizing an anhydrate caused by drying or cooking starchy food in the absence of water. Calcium has many uses other than in the energy cycle.

Our bodies don't take in much calcium if we drink milk every day. Maybe between 6 and 10 percent. If we drink a glass once a week it hits up into the eighty percent range. When we utilize the calcium from our bones it brings out another chemical with it, they have given it a name but I can't remember it, that helps us with healing. Science wasn't aware of this till recently and that healing chemical is not present if we drink milk or take supplements daily. I'm sure the body has a way of triggering it's release but that may bring too much calcium into the blood. It's in early research presently but you will notice that doctors are reducing calcium supplements to patients now.......Silently......It's not really their fault anyway, who knew that.

Your right about most of your post MrXYZ, I'm just adding content here. Some veggies are high in calcium but some require antidotes too. Cooking them helps neutralize some PDS (plant defense system) associated problems.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And as usual your still missing the point, why did we turn to cows milk to begin with?


And so it doesn't even matter to you that only people of European descent even have the ability to drink milk? The rest of the world can't physically do it. Their body cannot digest it after they are babies.

You're just using milk as an excuse to believe your beliefs. It doesn't hold water once it is critiqued.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Calcium is an antidote for many things and availability of it is crucial. Milk just happened to be handy, it also was a good source of fats that humans need, or butter. Most people used to give skim milk to the pigs and take the cream and butter till recently(100 yrs). Occasionally drinking a glass or putting it in the grains or basically cereal to neutralize some of the chemistry. They didn't know about chemistry, they just knew you don't seem to get sick. It works by neutralizing an anhydrate caused by drying or cooking starchy food in the absence of water. Calcium has many uses other than in the energy cycle.

Our bodies don't take in much calcium if we drink milk every day. Maybe between 6 and 10 percent. If we drink a glass once a week it hits up into the eighty percent range. When we utilize the calcium from our bones it brings out another chemical with it, they have given it a name but I can't remember it, that helps us with healing. Science wasn't aware of this till recently and that healing chemical is not present if we drink milk or take supplements daily. I'm sure the body has a way of triggering it's release but that may bring too much calcium into the blood. It's in early research presently but you will notice that doctors are reducing calcium supplements to patients now.......Silently......It's not really their fault anyway, who knew that.

Your right about most of your post MrXYZ, I'm just adding content here. Some veggies are high in calcium but some require antidotes too. Cooking them helps neutralize some PDS (plant defense system) associated problems.


I think I need a link or some citation for this if you wouldn't mind. It sounds some something Natural News would advocate.

Our need for calcium goes back to the days before anything walked on land in the form of calcium carbonate, which marine creatures still use to make shells, even eggshells.


edit on 3/13/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


According to these ancient scripts a lot of the water came from the earth itself, something could have caused the water trapped in the earth to come out. A collapse of the aquifers could water to shoot out of the earth everywhere. Many ancient cities are under water, were they on dry land once or did they build them under water. If there was an impact that gave energy to the earths crust, it could have destabilized the earths crust and quickened the earth or caused quicksand and Loda to form causing things to sink and landslides everywhere and much of the trapped water to come out. This is conceivable, but it will not happen again on that scale because most aquifers are low of fresh waters. Except where I live

edit on 13-3-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





Calcium is an antidote for many things and availability of it is crucial. Milk just happened to be handy
See this is where I keep getting people stuck, and unable to get a solid answer here.

Handier then what?
The fact is there is nothing to compare it to since you can't make the claim that we can get enough calcium from fruits and veggies. You would have to gorge yourself on them and take supplements.

I think someone tried telling me it was better then us eating grass.
First of all I'm not a cow, never have been never will be, and I don't posses the stomachs needed to process grass into milk. I doubt seriously if we ever used to eat grass.
It's one thing when you pull at straws looking for answers but at least make some sense.




it also was a good source of fats that humans need, or butter.
Again, compared to what? The fact still remains there is nothing to compare it to. Milk has exceeded our other sources of calcium, but its not like our other choices were ever enough to begin with. It's not our milk, its not our food, and its not our planet.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Your "logic" is wrong because as the link I posted clearly shows, it's physically impossible to have a global flood on this planet. Yet you continue to imply it's a real possibility...when it's DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Then how do you explain pangea? There is no other explanation. It would appear from many things including water marks in many areas that our planet did go through a big flood.

You can't say its demonstrably wrong when no one has tried to recreate it. It's not an easy thing to recreate. I think what it all boils down to is we don't know everything and it is possible.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rickymouse
 





Calcium is an antidote for many things and availability of it is crucial. Milk just happened to be handy
See this is where I keep getting people stuck, and unable to get a solid answer here.

Handier then what?
The fact is there is nothing to compare it to since you can't make the claim that we can get enough calcium from fruits and veggies. You would have to gorge yourself on them and take supplements.


No, you wouldn't. See here:

www.vrg.org...



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


According to these ancient scripts a lot of the water came from the earth itself, something could have caused the water trapped in the earth to come out. A collapse of the aquifers could water to shoot out of the earth everywhere. Many ancient cities are under water, were they on dry land once or did they build them under water. If there was an impact that gave energy to the earths crust, it could have destabilized the earths crust and quickened the earth or caused quicksand and Loda to form causing things to sink and landslides everywhere and much of the trapped water to come out. This is conceivable, but it will not happen again on that scale because most aquifers are low of fresh waters. Except where I live

edit on 13-3-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


I know that theory, and it has one major failing: it doesn't explain the mechanism. Even an impact wouldn't make all aquifers collapse.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Back in the old days they ate a lot of wild game and cows that were lean. If the body is working properly it processes fats to energy. Beef has two of the needed saturated fats but butter has one that meat doesn't have much of. The other saturated fat comes from tropical fruit like coconut which they didn't have in Europe. I'm trying to find the local source of this type of fat but still need to research it. To utilize Saturated fats for energy it appears that there has to be a proportion that needs consideration. I've got much research in this area yet.

I'm allergic to milk but can drink it about once a week. I take a multimineral pill that has a small amount of calcium in it. I started wondering why I was taking it at different times, I originally thought it was because of the antihistamine effect of selenium. I noticed I didn't crave it when I drank a little milk. I then studied calcium and found a partial explanation. Calcium is the emergency treatment or antidote for propylene glycol toxicity, something that's present in many foods now adays. Milk supplies it. I still haven't got the answers to my own problems, I keep digging up so many other things.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





And so it doesn't even matter to you that only people of European descent even have the ability to drink milk? The rest of the world can't physically do it. Their body cannot digest it after they are babies.

You're just using milk as an excuse to believe your beliefs. It doesn't hold water once it is critiqued.
And it doesn't have to. The fact is we still drink it and depend on it for calcium, the fact is that it seems to have never have replaced anything else in the realm of calcium, meaning it was our main choice of calcium.
Granted a lot of people don't drink milk but I'll bet they still eat the processed cheese that comes from it which by the way ranks the highest on the calcium list. Perhaps they eat products that have calcium from milk in them.

I don't need to prove anything, its in the stores today being sold is pretty damn good proof to me.
Happy is trying to tell me that the reason we started to drink milk was an alternative to tainted water. So in other words it just so happens to be a coincidence that it ranks high on the calcium list that we happen to be lacking in. I don't buy it.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I think someone tried telling me it was better then us eating grass.
You was asked to explain by me if you are correct how do cows that only eat grass produce full fat milk. Your answer was I believe they drink milk.


Going to ignore the rest of your dishonest post as you have had described to you in great detail and have been supplied many links to back up all that info that show you are wrong.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Your "logic" is wrong because as the link I posted clearly shows, it's physically impossible to have a global flood on this planet. Yet you continue to imply it's a real possibility...when it's DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Then how do you explain pangea? There is no other explanation. It would appear from many things including water marks in many areas that our planet did go through a big flood.

You can't say its demonstrably wrong when no one has tried to recreate it. It's not an easy thing to recreate. I think what it all boils down to is we don't know everything and it is possible.


What do you mean when you say "explain Pangea"??? Ever heard about plate tectonics??




top topics



 
31
<< 285  286  287    289  290  291 >>

log in

join