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: 306
31
<< 303  304  305    307  308  309 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That made no sense whatsoever, but how do you think it disproves evolution?
Here is what it comes down to with evolution.

If we evolved, we should go back, because we were way better off. We are sucking at evolving.


Doesn't matter if we suck at it or not. We're evolving. You might think we were better off before, but a lot of people would disagree with you.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I was talking to varemia not a person who defames the alien, praised be his name but my take on wht the historical documents is every bit as valid as yours and I explain why which you do not.

So get behind me satan



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Learn some biology. They are called canines for a reason.
Learn more biology and find that our were just named that because they resemble canines from animals.
There is nothing factual that proves they are or for that matter ever were for tearing meat.




Sigh.
So your agreeing.




Canine

Both the maxillary and mandibular canines are called the "cornerstone" of the mouth because they are all located three teeth away from the midline, and separate the premolars from the incisors. The location of the canines reflect their dual function as they complement both the premolars and incisors during chewing. Nonetheless, the most common action of the canines is tearing of food. There is a single cusp on canines, and they resemble the prehensile teeth found in carnivorous animals. Though similar, there are some minor differences between the deciduous and permanent canines.



en.wikipedia.org...
Which is fine, I think your misunderstanding me, I'm just trying to say that we were never meant to eat raw meat.




When louie Pastour sat down and figured out how to pasteurize milk, he did have dollar signs in front of him. He had an idea that would allow us to drink milk without getting sick.:
I meant to say didn't.




How old are you, anyway? Ever heard of agribusiness? What do we have Swanson, Tyson, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Frito Lay...Dole, Green Giant and so on ad infinitum? Surely they're not distributing food out of the goodness of their hearts. Coca Cola used to have coc aine in it and was marketed as such.
I believe that more and more with time, greed was a factor, but not from the start, and milk has been around from the start.





It's also easier to chew when it's cooked. But if you want to eat raw meat, by all means do so. People do--sometimes they get sick and sometimes they don't.
So now, which is it? Are we not meant to eat meat, or is it that we aren't meant to eat any of the meat we have available, or the meat we are suppose to eat just isn't here?

There are rare places here on earth where people still eat raw meat. There are also gambling tables in NV where people drop tens of thousands of dollars per a roll of the dice.

Raw meat in any country can make you sick, you can get parasites that can make you very ill. We cook meat because it takes away this risk. You could eat the parasites after they are cooked and have no problems. It's a guaranteed way to make sure we don't get sick.

Gorillas, apes, and chimps eating meat is something under strong debate. I think if anything is hungry enough, it might eat meat, but its not common to see them eat meat is one thing that is clear.

So now the question becomes why did we push the need for meat? Obviously because we need it. Our bodies need the protein so we feel the need.

Why would we evolve into something knowing that we would have no food to eat is the big question.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Doesn't matter if we suck at it or not. We're evolving. You might think we were better off before, but a lot of people would disagree with you.
You honestly think we evolved for the better? Aside from redundant adaptation, what got better?
We are MUCH sicker so our health didn't get any better.
We have no target food so that didn't get better.
What exactly got better.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



A good example would be back to the shoes. Rather than fixing the perspiration problem by making better shoes, we would rather make something to correct the perspiration problem.
What hog wash. Dont believe the idiot. I have already explained why we wear shoes. Socks are just an extension of that reason.

As the numbers of humans grew, because we are so suited to this planet it became harder for the aliens to tell us apart by just looking to see how heavy our shoes were so socks were invented to act in the same way as a soldiers stripes.

Some people have told me this or I may have seen a video somewhere. Aliens actually left us because the footwear got so complex they could no longer recognise anyone but they did promise to return when we mend our ways and once again wear sensible footwear.

This is why they put so musch importance on our soles in the historical document

edit on 19-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I was talking to varemia not a person who defames the alien, praised be his name but my take on wht the historical documents is every bit as valid as yours and I explain why which you do not.

So get behind me satan
Oh brother



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Doesn't matter if we suck at it or not. We're evolving. You might think we were better off before, but a lot of people would disagree with you.
You honestly think we evolved for the better? Aside from redundant adaptation, what got better?
We are MUCH sicker so our health didn't get any better.
We have no target food so that didn't get better.
What exactly got better.


1) We aren't sicker than before. In fact, our life expectancy increased thanks to science.

2) We have TONS of target food that is perfectly fine for humans. I travelled all over the planet, and pretty much everywhere I went there was food around.

3) Our intelligence got better, which allows us to do science. You know...science...the thing that allows you to type the drivel you post



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Which is fine, I think your misunderstanding me, I'm just trying to say that we were never meant to eat raw meat.


That is NOT what you said, so stop trying to backtrack.

I'm done even trying to reason with you. You just spit out whatever comes into your head and don't take any time to actually absorb what anyone writes.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Oh brother is right. You have purposely misread the historical documents because it is clear they show we are from here and everything else was brought here for us.

Prove me wrong



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





1) We aren't sicker than before. In fact, our life expectancy increased thanks to science.
I seriously doubt going from living 1000 years to 80 means we are healither.




2) We have TONS of target food that is perfectly fine for humans. I travelled all over the planet, and pretty much everywhere I went there was food around.
Well if thats true than you should have no problem naming at least one ???





3) Our intelligence got better, which allows us to do science. You know...science...the thing that allows you to type the drivel you post
Thats fine to believe but no one ever told me that evolution means trading things.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That is NOT what you said, so stop trying to backtrack.

I'm done even trying to reason with you. You just spit out whatever comes into your head and don't take any time to actually absorb what anyone writes.
I'm just stating the obvious, if we have meat eating teeth, your obviously assuming we are suppose to eat raw meat.

I'm saying they may not be for meat, they just appear the same way but for another food type.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh brother is right. You have purposely misread the historical documents because it is clear they show we are from here and everything else was brought here for us.

Prove me wrong
It's not even possible.
In the Hebrews section of the bible they clearly state that earth is not our home, repeatedly. I think that sort of sums it up.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   


reply to post by itsthetooth
 




Gorillas, apes, and chimps eating meat is something under strong debate. I think if anything is hungry enough, it might eat meat, but its not common to see them eat meat is one thing that is clear.


You do realise that its sentences such as the above that make you look un-educated?

Gorillas and Chimps ARE apes. As to their dietary requirements, gorillas are herbivores, chimps are omnivores. (That means they pretty much eat anything, a bit like one of their very close cousins...homo-spiens)

Chimps are also excellent (and ruthless) hunters who work together to chase small monkeys through the trees, with other groups of chimps heading them off untill the prey is cornered, captured and then ripped to pieces before being eaten.

They have large canines, (incidently, the name has nothing to do with "meat tearing". While that may be the purpose of the canines, the clue is in the name, you know canines....dogs....a more accurate "english" name for those teeth would be dog teeth). These teeth are used for tearing......anything, and evoltionary wise for attack and defensive purposes. A bit like this little herbivore:



edit on 19-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I seriously doubt going from living 1000 years to 80 means we are healither.


Living 1000 years? What the hell are you talking about?





Well if thats true than you should have no problem naming at least one ???


Last night I went to a South African restaurant in London. Had Gnu, sweet potatoes, spring vegetables, and a nice red wine sauce. All of those ingredients were much appreciated food


I also ate a giant maggot in Australia once...I didn't die.




Thats fine to believe but no one ever told me that evolution means trading things.


As you adapt, you also lose traits that aren't as useful and required for survival anymore. For example, our hair become thinner over the years...because we live in environments that don't require a thick fur, or because we adapted to cold environments. While that happened, our brains also evolved.

Seals evolved from dog like creatures, and they lost some traits too...like their legs.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





You do realise that its sentences such as the above that make you look un-educated?

Gorillas and Chimps ARE apes. As to their dietary requirements, gorillas are herbivores, chimps are omnivores. (That means they pretty much eat anything, a bit like one of their very close cousins...homo-spiens)
Well you only feel that way because you believe in evolution, and I don't.

I though gorillas were gorillas, and chimps where chimps and apes were apes, but I guess that's just my understanding of it.




Chimps are also excellent (and ruthless) hunters who work together to chase small monkeys through the trees, with other groups of chimps heading them off untill the prey is cornered, captured and then ripped to pieces before being eaten.
Everything I'm reading says that meat is not a normal part of there diet.




They have large canines, (incidently, the name has nothing to do with "meat tearing". While that may be the purpose of the canines, the clue is in the name, you know canines....dogs....a more accurate "english" name for those teeth would be dog teeth). These teeth are used for tearing......anything, and evoltionary wise for attack and defensive purposes. A bit like this little herbivore:
What I'm saying is just because we have some similar teeth doesn't mean its proof that it was intended for meat.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well you only feel that way because you believe in evolution, and I don't. I though gorillas were gorillas, and chimps where chimps and apes were apes, but I guess that's just my understanding of it.


Your understanding of "it" is wrong.




Everything I'm reading says that meat is not a normal part of there diet.


Then you're not reading any scientific sources. Homo sapiens (and its ancestors) has been eating meat for thousands of years.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Then you're not reading any scientific sources. Homo sapiens (and its ancestors) has been eating meat for thousands of years.
No I wasn't referring to homo-sapians, I was referring to apes, and chimps.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Living 1000 years? What the hell are you talking about?
There is documentation in the bible, with actual names of the people that say we used to live 1000 years.




Last night I went to a South African restaurant in London. Had Gnu, sweet potatoes, spring vegetables, and a nice red wine sauce. All of those ingredients were much appreciated food

I also ate a giant maggot in Australia once...I didn't die.
No one said you would die, but you could get sick, and its probably just well kept.




As you adapt, you also lose traits that aren't as useful and required for survival anymore. For example, our hair become thinner over the years...because we live in environments that don't require a thick fur, or because we adapted to cold environments. While that happened, our brains also evolved.
Which has got to be the biggest crock because you can't explain why our hair on the top of our heads can grow down to our butts.




Seals evolved from dog like creatures, and they lost some traits too...like their legs.
Has there ever been any DNA work that conclusively proves that seals evolved from dogs? Or are people just making wild assumptions.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh brother is right. You have purposely misread the historical documents because it is clear they show we are from here and everything else was brought here for us.

Prove me wrong
It's not even possible.
In the Hebrews section of the bible they clearly state that earth is not our home, repeatedly. I think that sort of sums it up.


Ha ha ha. Typical answer from someone who has read Hebrews without any understanding. You are of course wrong but. If you had read it correctly it clearly says we are home.

This is backed up by: humans are guardians of God's Creation (Quran 6:165), and this does not make us superior and thus allow us to abuse, as we're all God's species (Quran 6:38)

And the hindu vedas say It is considered that only from the earth, and only after a human life, can the soul reach supreme salvation,

You have obviously not studied the historical documents in the correct way. Which really sums it up

edit on 19-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Then you're not reading any scientific sources. Homo sapiens (and its ancestors) has been eating meat for thousands of years.
No I wasn't referring to homo-sapians, I was referring to apes, and chimps.


Homo sapiens are apes.




top topics



 
31
<< 303  304  305    307  308  309 >>

log in

join