Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by DorkLard
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'm not here to spoon feed you

I'm not asking to be spoon fed...all I'm asking for is a single shred of objective evidence, something you have totally failed to provide

But from your answers it's pretty clear you are unable to provide any real evidence, and rather continue your smug promotion of pseudo-science. I hope you realize it's kinda hard to take you seriously if you don't even bother posting objective evidence in a thread talking about science

Right back you give me a shred of evidence ?

Wait a minute isn't that why this site is a conspiracy site, no evidence for or against in any field.....

PS the term Pseudo was coined for a reason in this environment, keeps the sheeple in line, get back to sleep, nothings going on, its all pseudo sciences, watch TV we'll tell you how it goes, now, consume, conform, obey.

Now pass it on Pseudo, Pseudo, Pseudo, that ought to buy us sometime captain....

reply to post by DorkLard

Right back you give me a shred of evidence ?

Now you're just trolling...or simply too lazy to check up on the links I posted. They show without a doubt that my claims are right, and you're talking out of your ass. Hell, you haven't bothered providing a single shred of objective evidence.

Nice attempt at trolling, kudos

Wait a minute isn't that why this site is a conspiracy site, no evidence for or against in any field...

Just because it's a conspiracy site doesn't mean you can simply make stuff up and shouldn't bother with objective, logical, and rational thinking...obviously you disagree and are simply here to state your BELIEFS rather than applying logic and rationally examine evidence

reply to post by MrXYZ


But how could I argue with a pseudo-intellect like you

I'm sure I could provide links with the complete opposite.

All I can say is, don't think everything is final just because science is at this level, as it is constantly evolving, maybe in 100 years from now school children will laugh at we believe, whatever we believe.

Originally posted by DorkLard
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

But how could I argue with a pseudo-intellect like you

I'm sure I could provide links with the complete opposite.

All I can say is, don't think everything is final just because science is at this level, as it is constantly evolving, maybe in 100 years from now school children will laugh at we believe, whatever we believe.

If you are so sure you could provide credible, objective links showing I'm wrong...why don't you do so? Instead you're simply trolling and stating your BELIEF, rather than providing anything useful or credible to the discussion

Even worse, over and over again you're proven wrong...and the best you can come up with is: "you are wrong, I'm right...and I have proof, but I don't wanna show that proof". That's laughable

reply to post by DorkLard

I'm sure I could provide links with the complete opposite.

But you have not

All I can say is, don't think everything is final just because science is at this level, as it is constantly evolving, maybe in 100 years from now school children will laugh at we believe, whatever we believe.

Well if you look back at science 100 years ago many of the foundations of modern science were either in place or formulated. Dont think anyone laughs at it.

If the kids 100 years on are told we believed we walked around with a dinosaur pet I would expect them to laugh just as hard as we do now.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Because as has been posted dozens of times by now, there's

Yep and its also been posted doaens of times that those don't meet our needs on the RDA. You would have to gorge yourself on those foods and live in multiple areas at the same time to make it work.

I have to give you kudos, you're very consistent when it comes to showing off your ignorance. You simply ignore every single fact that disagrees with your irrational beliefs...like the FACT that there are plenty of alternative sources of calcium that allow people to satisfy their calcium intake

I would say the same about you as I have had to repeat this over again.

reply to post by colin42

Oh a surprise. You made something up to avoid answering a question. How not new.

No I made something up because you failed to answer it.

No 'should ' is not a better word. 'Should' some people drink milk they 'would' die. Milk as you have been told many times is a convienance food that many cannot drink.

I was speaking purly in terms of the need of the nutrition.

If you had taken the time to read your own link about the bushman you would know the answer. Shame on you.

The bushmans methods were either not obtainable by todays standards for most of the population or he wasn't hitting his needs. Either way, it wasn't working. This is why people advance. I know you don't believe in this and thnk that nothing ever gets better but the fact is we made some decisions and got better. Things are suppose to be better for us then they were back then. Unless you think we are de-evolving. Its up to you.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Because as has been posted dozens of times by now, there's

Yep and its also been posted doaens of times that those don't meet our needs on the RDA. You would have to gorge yourself on those foods and live in multiple areas at the same time to make it work.

I have to give you kudos, you're very consistent when it comes to showing off your ignorance. You simply ignore every single fact that disagrees with your irrational beliefs...like the FACT that there are plenty of alternative sources of calcium that allow people to satisfy their calcium intake

I would say the same about you as I have had to repeat this over again.

Once again, you don't need several areas. There's plenty of food varieties on this planet that don't require you to travel distances humans can't cope with

reply to post by itsthetooth

No I made something up because you failed to answer it.

No, you did not answer the question because you are a fool. So you avoided it, you still are.

I was speaking purly in terms of the need of the nutrition.

No you thought you was being clever but as usual you were just speaking out of your rear end

The bushman’s methods were either not obtainable by today’s standards for most of the population or he wasn't hitting his needs. Either way, it wasn't working. This is why people advance. I know you don't believe in this and thnk that nothing ever gets better but the fact is we made some decisions and got better. Things are suppose to be better for us then they were back then. Unless you think we are de-evolving. Its up to you.

Apart from this paragraph being pretty much unreadable the parts I could pull out were as usual drivel.

The hunter gatherer life style wasn’t working? Who hit you multiple times with the idiot stick? That life style still followed today by some is what set us up for what we have become.

It may be hard for someone as ignorant as you to imagine but man is a highly intelligent animal. He invents. produces art, solves problems. People advance because we are humans. Unlike you most people are willing to learn and move forward not whinged about how bad life is and its all the aliens fault. Most important of all we are eager to LEARN.

So stop telling me what I think you total plonker. You have no idea about what you think let alone someone else.

When are you going to stop with. 'Things are supposed to be better for us', 'this is not allowable' and all the other rules and laws you have set up to protect your brain dead religion, and that is what it is.

Life has no other rules than you either live or you die and what you do in between is your choice. You have obviously chosen ignorance and limited yourself severely and blamed aliens. Well done for wasting the space you occupy.

Originally posted by DorkLard
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I think you are trying to pick at something that isn't there; since your comments all started after i posted a video of Michael Cremo I would like to know have you actually read one of his books or are you just regurgitating what other people have written about him rather than making your own mind up ?

Now be honest.

I read part of Forbidden Archaeology. I couldn't get through it--surely we're not expected to swallow his ideas? It was a huge book, but my biggest beef is that he violates Occam's razor--he doesn't take into account simpler hypotheses that are easy to test before getting more and more grandiose and elaborate. If you make a theory too complex, it's usually wrong. He is a fundamentalist Hindu, and he's going to look at any evidence with that view in mind, just as Christian fundys do. You need to learn about what Hindu fundamentalists believe before you can even tackle the book.

Originally posted by MrXYZ


That clown claims humans have been on earth for millions (or billions) of years. DNA analysis and the fossil record both prove that this clearly isn't the case.

The only reason he ignores science is because it disagrees with his creationist views. Nothing he claims is based on facts or objective evidence...

The "evidence" he bases his conclusions on is 1) very old; and 2) very limited. He thinks H. sapiens is millions of years old based on a single femur if I recall correctly.

Originally posted by DorkLard


So why are you on this site if you believe that no agency or department can hide or cover anything up and never has done ?

Just because we're on this site doesn't mean we've all taken leave of our wits. Not everyone is paranoid delusional.

By your reasoning how can any conspiracy exist ?

That doesn't mean everything is a conspiracy. That's crazy. You types are afraid of even your own shadow. How sad it must be to live in your world--to never be able to trust anyone, to never feel at ease with even the smallest detail. Sad.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by DorkLard

 

dont exist because there is no way that man could ever be that technologically advanced in the past to build them.

Except, we do know how they were built...hell, there's Egyptian paintings showing how men pull massive blocks of rock

Here's the link if you care about facts: LINK

FYI, archaeologists often pull blocks of rocks weighing 2 tonnes and more without the use of technology.

Of course watching Ancient Aliens on the "History" channel won't tell you that...even though it's been known for years

That's because Cremo and guys like him were involved in that show. They'll only tell you what they want you to know.

Archaeologists may have found the oldest indication of human civilization, and it's not in Africa. Embedded in meteorite rocks, they found samples of hand-axes dating back to 1.8 million years in Malaysia, supporting the multiregional theory for human origins.

reply to post by discountgenetics

As I pointed out in your own thread (now removed by staff), Homo erectus had stone tools like these. Erectus was already present in Southeast Asia, for example at Mojokerto in Java, Indonesia, 1.8 million years ago. The question whether Homo erectus is ancestral to Homo Sapiens is undecided; if it is, the molecular evidence indicates that the descent must have occurred in Africa.

Originally posted by Barcs

For sure, it's a good topic to think about. I saw a very good special on either History channel or Discovery a couple years back that was theorizing about some kind of comet impact in the Indian Ocean. That would make perfect sense considering the vast amounts of flood myths in Asia. It very well could have happened more than once over the years.

Yes, and it would explain so much. Why agriculture lurched in fits and starts, why the climate changed so quickly, why there were mass exoduses and migrations.

It really depends on the size of the comet or asteroid, but yeah there would definitely be some destruction. Probably at least 100 foot high Tsunami. Scientists have determined that around every 500,000 years or so, we are struck by an object 1km or so in diameter causing lots of damage, and plenty of smaller ones in between. Maybe most of the myths come from the big one. Maybe that happened much more recently that we realize. Of course now I can't find the link about the cycle of extinction level events.

The galactic cycle? I've heard of that one.

That is interesting. I didn't realize the the last interglacial was warmer than this one.

Oh, yes. It was so warm that sea level was 25 feet higher than it is now and the Arctic may well have been ice-free.

So it's still getting colder as a whole in this ace age, and we're destined for another glacial period eventually. But the temperature is getting warmer in this interglacial period. Am I getting that right?

No, it's getting colder. The 5,000 year trend is downward. There are problems, however, using proxy data like tree rings. There's more that goes into tree ring growth than just temperature. The ice core data shows that while it's currently the warmest its been since 1650 (which was the Little Ice Age, so of course it's going to be warmer, duh), it's colder than it was 5,000 years ago.

We're in a 3-million year long ice age that's progressively getting colder.

Anyway, see here for items of interest:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

That does pretty much turn global warming into a joke. One these days, we are going to get tested again. Hopefully we'll be advanced enough to prevent a future large impact event. Part of that may be predicting the cycle.

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

I don't known about that. Even if we could predict it, we probably wouldn't be able to do anything about it. What's the max warning we would get, about 6 months?

reply to post by colin42


All you have to do is go out among people to see we've moved backwards.
None today could replicate Miccu Piccu, the Great Pyramid, or the Mitchell-Hedges skull, much less explain their presence.
There is a 2000 year old astrolabe/navigating tool that worked better than computer programs, and batteries that date in the thousands.
Lets not forget the vitrified bodies on the outskirts of India with the insanely high radioactive readings.
This is a proving ground and a petri dish with largely failed experiments.
Deity are all political invention and an excuse to not think for oneself, and Darwin's theories are best exemplified in the natural world which is a world without human beings.
People don't even have the physical integrity to do what they did 100 years ago, films prove this.

reply to post by colin42

Apart from this paragraph being pretty much unreadable the parts I could pull out were as usual drivel.

The hunter gatherer life style wasn’t working? Who hit you multiple times with the idiot stick? That life style still followed today by some is what set us up for what we have become.

It may be hard for someone as ignorant as you to imagine but man is a highly intelligent animal. He invents. produces art, solves problems. People advance because we are humans. Unlike you most people are willing to learn and move forward not whinged about how bad life is and its all the aliens fault. Most important of all we are eager to LEARN.

So stop telling me what I think you total plonker. You have no idea about what you think let alone someone else.

When are you going to stop with. 'Things are supposed to be better for us', 'this is not allowable' and all the other rules and laws you have set up to protect your brain dead religion, and that is what it is.

Life has no other rules than you either live or you die and what you do in between is your choice. You have obviously chosen ignorance and limited yourself severely and blamed aliens. Well done for wasting the space you occupy.

Aside from you contradicting yourself in this section, I fail to get your point because of it. We either moved forward, away from the bushman, or we didn't which is it?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Once again, you don't need several areas. There's plenty of food varieties on this planet that don't require you to travel distances humans can't cope with

I would suggest you study that a tad closer. Removing mans ability to adapt, you have to remove man from this picture to first determine if he was meant to be here to begin with. To see if there are any accommodations, which there isn't. In other words this planet wasn't set up for us to be living on it.

After you determine nothing is here to help us before hand, start looking at water. There are a few select areas where we can drink water without having to drill. Other places are simply not safe. Aside from that, you are very limited to just those areas. Now what you would have to agree on at this point is that our species was NOT intended to grow out of those areas simply from lack of water.

Next thing you look at is food. Hitting good marks to keep yourself healthy. You will find that when you have a resource in one branch you will be lacking in other things that are only readily found in a different area. Again you have to have the mind set that we didn't start out on this planet with delivery trucks.

Now you get the picture.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Aside from you contradicting yourself in this section, I fail to get your point because of it. We either moved forward, away from the bushman, or we didn't which is it?

Again you show the reading skills of a chimp and the intelligence of a chump.

The bushmen exist alive and well today along side our modern society which shows again your take on it must be one or the other, like all your uninformed tripe is wrong even when the evidence is infront of your face.

You must have no life experience at all if you believe it to be so black and white. Again you are avoiding addressing the points I made by these cretinous questions