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: 328
31
<< 325  326  327    329  330  331 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Hate to break the bad news to you but we are not Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens (according to the scientific dogma that people like you cling to.) Nice try though. Anything else to say or are you guys just gonna keep bullsh tting yourselves?




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by colin42
 


I would be the first person here to admit it if I found out that I was wrong, which is more than you can say, as you have not dealt with the information in my argument yet, you have only attacked my demeanor. I am not here to make friends (which should be obvious), I am here to challenge the norm. You failed the challenge, end of story. I take it debating is not one of your strengths, as character assassinations seem to be your only MO. You really want me to admit I'm wrong, than prove that I'm wrong. How about that. Better yet, prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're right. You can't do either because your ego is doing all of the talking. So I'm angry, what's your point? Want a tissue for your issue? I have a better idea. If my words bother you so much, how bout you stop responding so that I don't feel obliged to reciprocate. That would solve this problem you seem to have most ricky tick.
Here you prove my point. I never told you what you should believe just that the things you were saying like 'survival of the fittest' and quoting Darwin. I may be wrong but from memeory you have even asked for the 'missing link'. All are not current and none are correct.

You say you can accept being told you are wrong, prove it. You was wrong and I gave you information to correct it.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm sorry, I must have been sleeping, as I did not see any information anywhere amongst the character assassination that you have undertaken against me from my first post in this thread until now. You have not given me any facts. I, on the other hand have given you many facts (just look at the length of my posts against yours), which you summarily disregarded. You have a serious perception problem. Seriously, no more responses needed. The only thing you will accomplish is to further embarass yourself. Adieu. You're better off for never having met me face to face, that's all I can say. You might live longer that way.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





I get it I do. And you don't have to believe me, but I truly do look at outside possibilities, and there definitely are things ignored in the mainstream. The timeline we've set up could be horribly inaccurate, that is not outside of the realm of possibility. However, when we look at evolution by itself, not considering where we come from, just on the basics of it, it works. Who knows maybe we were hit by some kind of super flare, or gamma ray burst that was just powerful enough to change our evolutionary path, or causing us to "jump" so to speak. We don't know, and these are questions we cannot yet answer. But what we do know, is that the basics of evolution still hold true, and although they might not explain us or everything about the universe, we cannot say it is false.
Oh ander, I just have to stomp in your play ground. As you must know from just very recent posts I have made, quoting a major evolution website


From the link its clear that evolution is a series of hypothetical and postualte theorys. They openly admitt that it's all made up. In addition to this, the wiki page on speciation never mentions humans as one of the species identified with evolution, only some few aquatic species and we also hear from other links about some flys as well. People have allowed there imagination to stretch well beyond scientific limits. The structure of evolution fits very well with a Rube Goldenburg machine, with the exception that those machines actually work, from time to time. I keep reading on here that some people claim that evolution is currently used in medical science, so we know it must be real. I doubt very seriously if this frail train wreck of theorys are the culprit.

Evolutionists are assuming that just because a species no longer breeds with an older one, it's proof of evolution. I say its proof they don't breed anylonger. Specieation has never been witnessed in humans, there is not one single documented case of it. Now if they can see it in some few other life, and you believe it happens to us, than they should be able to see it in us, but they don't. In addition to this there is not one case of macroevolution ever being identified from over 2.5 million bones and fossils in over 150 years. I say what a joke, but I'm sure evolutionists would say keep looking.

And what exactly are they looking for. We alegedly have many bones of proof for a common ancestor, and you always claim there is no such thing as a missing link so what exactly are they continuing to find? It's such a waste. We have no way to identify the validity of the changes to know if they are from evolution or anything else for that matter. Our knowledge is only based on what we think is normal within a species and what we think is out of the norm. It's seriously frail groundwork for assesing changes in what we think might be evolution.

The basics of evolution have never applied to humans and there is no proof of it every being so. Everything I have read says only some aquatic life and bacteria and viruses and some flys. Humans are not even close to any of those. I think its also important to bring up diet again. If a species is suppose to evolve, what we are they suppose to eat? Everything needs food. Do we eat the same things we used to, which is obviously not the case as our diet differs greatly from apes, or do we steal food from another species? Either way you look at this there is no alternative to answer, it simply doesn't make sense. Humans have no target food here because they are not from here. Of course its no big shock, get moved to another planet and find it a chore getting something to eat.

We were moved here, there are to many things that say its so. Egyptian ruins, the bible, nazda lines, matsu pitsu, Sitchen, Pye, Von Daniken. Does it never stike you that it just might be possible that there is other life beyond the cosmos? Did it never occur to you that just maybe they might be more intelligent that us? Here is a hint, we aren't the ones flying the space ships. It's even possible they had some intervention in our lives.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by idmonster
 


Hate to break the bad news to you but we are not Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens (according to the scientific dogma that people like you cling to.) Nice try though. Anything else to say or are you guys just gonna keep bullsh tting yourselves?


"people like me...?" care to expand on that, bear in mind you know absolutly nothing about me.

Y&ou know nothing about my beliefs, my education, my character, my flaws...nothing.

So tell me about "people like me"



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





I get it I do. And you don't have to believe me, but I truly do look at outside possibilities, and there definitely are things ignored in the mainstream. The timeline we've set up could be horribly inaccurate, that is not outside of the realm of possibility. However, when we look at evolution by itself, not considering where we come from, just on the basics of it, it works. Who knows maybe we were hit by some kind of super flare, or gamma ray burst that was just powerful enough to change our evolutionary path, or causing us to "jump" so to speak. We don't know, and these are questions we cannot yet answer. But what we do know, is that the basics of evolution still hold true, and although they might not explain us or everything about the universe, we cannot say it is false.
Oh ander, I just have to stomp in your play ground. As you must know from just very recent posts I have made, quoting a major evolution website


From the link its clear that evolution is a series of hypothetical and postualte theorys. They openly admitt that it's all made up. In addition to this, the wiki page on speciation never mentions humans as one of the species identified with evolution, only some few aquatic species and we also hear from other links about some flys as well. People have allowed there imagination to stretch well beyond scientific limits. The structure of evolution fits very well with a Rube Goldenburg machine, with the exception that those machines actually work, from time to time. I keep reading on here that some people claim that evolution is currently used in medical science, so we know it must be real. I doubt very seriously if this frail train wreck of theorys are the culprit.

Evolutionists are assuming that just because a species no longer breeds with an older one, it's proof of evolution. I say its proof they don't breed anylonger. Specieation has never been witnessed in humans, there is not one single documented case of it. Now if they can see it in some few other life, and you believe it happens to us, than they should be able to see it in us, but they don't. In addition to this there is not one case of macroevolution ever being identified from over 2.5 million bones and fossils in over 150 years. I say what a joke, but I'm sure evolutionists would say keep looking.

And what exactly are they looking for. We alegedly have many bones of proof for a common ancestor, and you always claim there is no such thing as a missing link so what exactly are they continuing to find? It's such a waste. We have no way to identify the validity of the changes to know if they are from evolution or anything else for that matter. Our knowledge is only based on what we think is normal within a species and what we think is out of the norm. It's seriously frail groundwork for assesing changes in what we think might be evolution.

The basics of evolution have never applied to humans and there is no proof of it every being so. Everything I have read says only some aquatic life and bacteria and viruses and some flys. Humans are not even close to any of those. I think its also important to bring up diet again. If a species is suppose to evolve, what we are they suppose to eat? Everything needs food. Do we eat the same things we used to, which is obviously not the case as our diet differs greatly from apes, or do we steal food from another species? Either way you look at this there is no alternative to answer, it simply doesn't make sense. Humans have no target food here because they are not from here. Of course its no big shock, get moved to another planet and find it a chore getting something to eat.

We were moved here, there are to many things that say its so. Egyptian ruins, the bible, nazda lines, matsu pitsu, Sitchen, Pye, Von Daniken. Does it never stike you that it just might be possible that there is other life beyond the cosmos? Did it never occur to you that just maybe they might be more intelligent that us? Here is a hint, we aren't the ones flying the space ships. It's even possible they had some intervention in our lives.


And as soon as you provide evidence, even to the level of evolution that you feel is so poor, then your claims above might be taken a little more seriously.

You havent, you cant.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by idmonster
 


Hate to break the bad news to you but we are not Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens


Fair enough, riducule on that point removed, care to adress the "doesnt mean we evolved from chimps remark"
edit on 28-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





"people like me...?" care to expand on that, bear in mind you know absolutly nothing about me.

Y&ou know nothing about my beliefs, my education, my character, my flaws...nothing.

So tell me about "people like me"
Just be carful XXX because ID profiled me after he felt like he couldn't get a leg up on me. He scoured google to see if there were any matches based on my log in name and city, then tried to emberrasse me by posting his findings on here for everyone else to see.

I must present a strong argument for people to rely on such tactics.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





"people like me...?" care to expand on that, bear in mind you know absolutly nothing about me.

Y&ou know nothing about my beliefs, my education, my character, my flaws...nothing.

So tell me about "people like me"
Just be carful XXX because ID profiled me after he felt like he couldn't get a leg up on me. He scoured google to see if there were any matches based on my log in name and city, then tried to emberrasse me by posting his findings on here for everyone else to see.

I must present a strong argument for people to rely on such tactics.


Now who's profiling.....I looked you up to see who I was talking to, nothing to do with being unable to get a leg up...that was a given. And believe me, I certainly didnt post anything that could have caused you embarrasment, at least I hope I didnt. Apologies if that were the case.


Bu the way xXx, did you sort that problem with the fan>


edit on 28-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


My theory tends to get a little bit complicated, but, while I do believe that chimps and humans are related and might be on the same evolutionary branch, there is no way that we could have developed such drastic differences by natural selection alone.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I realize that. That is why I am not really intending on replying in this thread anymore. This charade grows more tiresome by the minute. Every time I hurt someone's delicate sensibilities they b tch and moan about that without even looking at my argument. Maybe I lost something since debate class....who knows lol. As far as I'm concerned, though, anger is a tool, a motivator, and it is the only thing keeping me going, so if my posts seem a bit on the aggro side, well than tough I guess lol. But the fact is a grown adult can't see my reasoning merely because I hurt his/her feelings. I think that's just pathetic. People need to grow some bloody skin around here.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


See, there's another word for that. It's called stalking. Not once during this entire ordeal have I bothered to look up info on any of you evolutionists. Your attitudes say it all as far as I'm concerned. But seriously, researching someone you're arguing with......kinda creepy, no? Am I to assume that you have been stalking around the internet looking for info on me as well? That's just creepy dude. Seriously.
edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Why not, are the difference really that drastic?

That we're from the same evolutionary branch I think is a given, based on the evidence to hand (primarily DNA)

Also, with the time scales involved, 100's of thousands of year plus the external factors.

In a steady state ecology, I agree with tooth that the time scales to get from "ape like" to Human appear to be to short. But during that time there have been near extinction events that have reduced the population numbers to mere handfuls of individuals, and thats a huge evolutionary presure to put on a species.

Think of the inbreeding that must have occured in a village population of maybe less than 100 individuals, think of the potential for genetic anomolies. Theres a reason we say "cousins shouldnt marry"

If we put natural selection to one side and just look at the events that have occured and affected us as a species, there must have been some impact on how we evolve.

I think in the early days of this thread, colin stated that he thought major evolutionary changes occured in accelerated burst, and the fossil record appears to support this, and why wouldnt it.

If a species evolves with its environment, it stands to reason that the more rapidly the environment changes, or the bigger the change to that environment, then the more rapid, and the greater the evolutionary change within the species.

While I dont dismiss either creationism, intelligent design, or even intervention as hypothetical mechanisms for change within a species, I dont see any reason why the diversity of species currently residing on earth cannot be explained by purely natural forces, and in this instance, I quote occams razor...natural selection is the simplest explanation.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by idmonster
 


See, there's another word for that. It's called stalking. Not once during this entire ordeal have I bothered to look up info on any of you evolutionists. Your attitudes say it all as far as I'm concerned. But seriously, researching someone you're arguing with......kinda creepy, no? Am I to assume that you have been stalking around the internet looking for info on me as well? That's just creepy dude. Seriously.
edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)


Hey, you're angry and aggro and we have to "deal with it". I want to know who I'm talking to...deal with it.


Still bein friendly tho
see...big smiles



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


The reason why they tell relatives not to marry is because it increases the chance of dormant genetic disorders pairing up and becoming active. It has nothing to do with mutation. If they all inbred, than that would be the source of the demise of that particular population, not a next step in evolution. I'll put it this way: If everyone inbred, the population would be alot smaller, due to skyrocketting infant mortality rates due to genetic disorders that may have been left dormant if two people from different bloodlines had copulated. You wouldn't see the drastic mutations like in "The Hills Have Eyes" for sure. The problem with Hollywood, is they have all the capacity to make things that have no basis in reality look real. With the mindset of people these days, that's enough to mould public opinion.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I would gladly take the middle finger in my face before I accept the conceited smile any day. At least I'm honest about it. I will admit that I have some restraint issues, but, as I said, anger is about the only thing I have left, so that is my fuel. Also, your comparison is entirely unrealistic. My problem is being too honest, while yours is being conceited and sneaky. Two completely different issues. If anything, my honesty is to be commended (and it often is) while dishonesty in all it's forms would be frowned upon in an ideal world. Think of it this way. At least people know who I really am. Some people spend their entire lives hiding their rage behind fake smiles and phony hello's, some of those people finally snap and shoot up a supermarket, but the rest of you just go on about how polite you are like it's a point of pride. Politeness means zip if it is not genuine, and it rarely is.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


LOL, I wasnt suggesting that, I was pretty much making the same point with the "cousins marrying" remark. That big gene pool = good, small gene pool = not so good.

The other point I was trying to make, was that it was the "not so good" times that that seem to drive the most rapid and drastic evolutionary changes. IMO



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





In a steady state ecology, I agree with tooth that the time scales to get from "ape like" to Human appear to be to short. But during that time there have been near extinction events that have reduced the population numbers to mere handfuls of individuals, and thats a huge evolutionary presure to put on a species.
And see that doesn't jive with what they are saying about our mtDNA. They say they know we went thourgh a bottleneck period, but at the same time are saying they can tell that our population never dipped below tens of thousands.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Now who's profiling.....I looked you up to see who I was talking to, nothing to do with being unable to get a leg up...that was a given. And believe me, I certainly didnt post anything that could have caused you embarrasment, at least I hope I didnt. Apologies if that were the case.


Bu the way xXx, did you sort that problem with the fan>
The point was, I think you tried, not that you succeeded.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by idmonster
 


I would gladly take the middle finger in my face before I accept the conceited smile any day. At least I'm honest about it. I will admit that I have some restraint issues, but, as I said, anger is about the only thing I have left, so that is my fuel. Also, your comparison is entirely unrealistic. My problem is being too honest, while yours is being conceited and sneaky. Two completely different issues. If anything, my honesty is to be commended (and it often is) while dishonesty in all it's forms would be frowned upon in an ideal world. Think of it this way. At least people know who I really am. Some people spend their entire lives hiding their rage behind fake smiles and phony hello's, some of those people finally snap and shoot up a supermarket, but the rest of you just go on about how polite you are like it's a point of pride. Politeness means zip if it is not genuine, and it rarely is.


So now I'm a liar.....its not just your anger you have issues with. And your "honesty" is born from arrogance. Don't believe that just because you admit your angry it allows you to be a twat and people will just accept it.

Your honesty isn't to be commended as its delivery is purely self serving narcissism.

You call me conceited and sneaky while still knowing zip about me, surely forming that opinion itself without knowing shows more conceit.

You talk about people "hiding their rage", you talk of their "false smiles". This is you we're talking about isnt it? You're the one who has spent to many years doing all of the above and now, for whatever reason you have release, you've found your anger.

Well that's great, but don't judge me by your standards.

I am not angry, I am at peace, When I smile at some one, it is always genuine, and I don't always smile, and my non-smiles are genuine also.

I am always honest with people, but am not conceited or arrogant enough to think that everybody should always hear how honest I am. I wont tell somebody they look great if they don't, but also wont shout out how # they look just because I can.




top topics



 
31
<< 325  326  327    329  330  331 >>

log in

join