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: 336
31
<< 333  334  335    337  338  339 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If sometimes is an answer to you being a speed reader then you need to stop. Speed reading does not mean skip text and pick out words that suit your agenda
I would agree with you except for the part that no one is fronting any missed words.




Well thanks for at least admitting 'target food ' is an invention by you. Now dont speed read this.

No one gives you the answer you ask for with regards to 'target food' because it is a nonsense invention that does not exist just like your version of 'natural and unnatural'. I know you use these nonsense terms to hide behind but all you do is make yourself the fool everyone has come to recognise.
Still funny how no one can answer them.




No he quite clearly said it 'COULD' be the brain being effected by the earths magnetic field and both humans and animals have brains.
True but they may not have telepathic powers still, your assuming, something you like to do a lot of.




You say he 'Published' his article. You do know, you being a science major that is not the same as publishing his findings to the scientific community dont you?
The findings are published in the NIH database you dim wit.




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And you're falling for Pye's nonsense again


His research hasn't been peer reviewed, and isn't listed. Don't believe me? Everyone can search the database, it's public...here's the link searching it for Lloyd Pye: LINK

It's incredibly that you so blindly believe whatever that clown says...even though it takes less than 3min to debunk his claims



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



We have no food we could call necessity It was a trick question Only understandable if you realize the food here is not our food.
I'll reply to parts of your post as others have ripped it apart already. It's only a trick question if it fools others. No one accepts your made up 'target food' so the only one being fooled is you, by yourself.


And you notice from the title of the book it has nothing to do with human genetics, that is a separate video which has nothing to do with that book.
How much does the video cost?


There are forces at work in the bible that are a hell of a lot harder to believe than purple unicorns, so every time you say that, I just sort of go along with it cause its lame.
There are a hell of a lot of forces explained by evolution and they are backed up by evidence and the DNA/Fossil records. Why do you choose the bible and try to maintain it is not a belief?


Of course things can be debunked, but merely claiming so doesn't automatically debunk things.
I'll repeat this as it is an important point


Of course things can be debunked, but merely claiming so doesn't automatically debunk things.
So now stop merely claiming evolution is false and back it up with evidence


Every one I have asked, agrees we have no target food here. Colin is convinced we are home, but he also can't produce any target food.
Like I have pointed out before. Unless these people show up here they dont exist. They are more rubbish you have made up in a desperate attempt to cling onto your fantasy.

Something you have also refused to do is provide a definition for you lame brained, made up term. At least provide that. It should be simple as it is your invention.


edit on 30-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I would agree with you except for the part that no one is fronting any missed words.
You must be speed writing now as that above makes no sense whatsoever


Still funny how no one can answer them.
You find it funny, I find you pathetic. Again target food is your invention so you define its meaning.

I could claim cows eat grass because their target food is not on this planet. Now provide proof that it is.


True but they may not have telepathic powers still, your assuming, something you like to do a lot of.
You are assuming that what he presented for discussion is fact which is something you do ALL the time


The findings are published in the NIH database you dim wit.
Link



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And you're falling for Pye's nonsense again

His research hasn't been peer reviewed, and isn't listed. Don't believe me? Everyone can search the database, it's public...here's the link searching it for Lloyd Pye: LINK

It's incredibly that you so blindly believe whatever that clown says...even though it takes less than 3min to debunk his claims
And I allready told you the findings are public record and can be searched through NIH's data base, your a real clown.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I'll reply to parts of your post as others have ripped it apart already. It's only a trick question if it fools others. No one accepts your made up 'target food' so the only one being fooled is you, by yourself.
Well it fooled you too Colin because I didn't see you speaking up about how its a trick question, I also didn't see you trying to come up with any target food. You got fooled twice on it.




How much does the video cost?
The video is free, just google human genetics by lloyd pye.




There are a hell of a lot of forces explained by evolution and they are backed up by evidence and the DNA/Fossil records. Why do you choose the bible and try to maintain it is not a belief?
I totally agree with you on this one here. There is a hell of a lot of foces explained by evoloution but I'm looking for ones that prove evolution. I think there is a difference.




So now stop merely claiming evolution is false and back it up with evidence
geez, where to start, well you could google speciation and read up on that. It clearly points out that speciation has only been witnessed in some aquatic life and viruses and bacteria, as well as some small insects. Humans are NOT part of the list, as is the rest of the planet. So people are making an assumable leap here with no evidence. Just assume assume , assume.





Like I have pointed out before. Unless these people show up here they dont exist. They are more rubbish you have made up in a desperate attempt to cling onto your fantasy.
Are you referring to yourself in the thrid person?




Something you have also refused to do is provide a definition for you lame brained, made up term. At least provide that. It should be simple as it is your invention.
Its quite simple actually, a target food would be plentiful no matter where we live. Would not have to be processed so it is natural, and we would depend on it to a large degree.. Like ants are to the ant eater is probably a good example.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You must be speed writing now as that above makes no sense whatsoever
No one is pointing out any words I have missed from speed reading.




You find it funny, I find you pathetic. Again target food is your invention so you define its meaning.
I was being sarcastic, I actually find it pathetic as well, pathetic that you aren't able to see that you lost this debate and I left you speechless with no target ideas to produce.




I could claim cows eat grass because their target food is not on this planet. Now provide proof that it is.
You have it backwards but yes grass could be a target food for cows, what we don't know is if grass was brought here as well. It's a valid point, for once.




You are assuming that what he presented for discussion is fact which is something you do ALL the time
Well it is true that the title which matches with over a dozen other sites does indicate he is claiming it to be a fact.




Lnk


Here is one link, not sure if you can reach the query data base from this page however.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

These data bases were allready covered in the past I just can't remember if it was on this thread, it was some time ago.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And you're falling for Pye's nonsense again

His research hasn't been peer reviewed, and isn't listed. Don't believe me? Everyone can search the database, it's public...here's the link searching it for Lloyd Pye: LINK

It's incredibly that you so blindly believe whatever that clown says...even though it takes less than 3min to debunk his claims
And I allready told you the findings are public record and can be searched through NIH's data base, your a real clown.


Did you click the link? It links directly to the NIH search database...and yes, it's public. Problem is, if you search for Pye, nothing pops up!! Tons of other respectable authors though.

Ironic you're calling me a clown asking me to search the very database I linked in my post



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well it fooled you too Colin because I didn't see you speaking up about how its a trick question, I also didn't see you trying to come up with any target food. You got fooled twice on it.
Yet again you delude yourself as I have always told you there is no such thing as target food as everyone else here has also. But seeing as though you now claim this to be a trick question you not only admit you have continuously lied your arguments based on target food now become defunct


The video is free, just google human genetics by lloyd pye.
You mean his U tube rubbish. Seen them, laughed and moved on other than that all I see on his site are books for sale including one on the star child


I totally agree with you on this one here. There is a hell of a lot of foces explained by evoloution but I'm looking for ones that prove evolution. I think there is a difference.
You dont look for the ones that prove Pye or the bible. Seems like a one sided and closed minded search but hey you are tooth.


geez, where to start, well you could google speciation and read up on that. It clearly points out that speciation has only been witnessed in some aquatic life and viruses and bacteria, as well as some small insects. Humans are NOT part of the list, as is the rest of the planet. So people are making an assumable leap here with no evidence. Just assume assume , assume.
Do you copy and paste all your responses? Dont bother of course you do as you only have a couple that you recycle over and over again but you are answering my challenge to stop merely claiming evolution is false and back it up with evidence so your answer yet again does nut cut it.


Of course things can be debunked, but merely claiming so doesn't automatically debunk things.
Again stop claiming and start providing evidence


Are you referring to yourself in the thrid person?
Again a meaningless answer. Were you trying to be funny or just showing more stupidity?


Its quite simple actually, a target food would be plentiful no matter where we live. Would not have to be processed so it is natural, and we would depend on it to a large degree.. Like ants are to the ant eater is probably a good example.
You had best avoid the ants. Whoops you have done many times. So if it is plentiful then it is target food. Then by your definition all our food is target food. We may make apple pies because we can but we can and do eat them right off the tree and there are plenty of apples. There is an almost endless list so again your, as you admit trick question has been debunked. You had better offer a better definition.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Did you click the link? It links directly to the NIH search database...and yes, it's public. Problem is, if you search for Pye, nothing pops up!! Tons of other respectable authors though
OMG you can't be that dim witted. Pye is not discovering any facts, hes just revealing whats in all of our DNA. This is why this whole argument of him not revealing his sources is so stupid.




Ironic you're calling me a clown asking me to search the very database I linked in my post
It's a public domain you idiot, why are you guys so dim witted about this, I don't get it.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No one is pointing out any words I have missed from speed reading.
Are you completely delusional? Everyone including me has told you over and over on every page that you have very poor reading skills and read only what you want to see at best.


I was being sarcastic, I actually find it pathetic as well, pathetic that you aren't able to see that you lost this debate and I left you speechless with no target ideas to produce.
Your correct in one thing. Until you give a definition of so called 'target food' I have nothing to say about a fools misconception


You have it backwards but yes grass could be a target food for cows, what we don't know is if grass was brought here as well. It's a valid point, for once.
No you are avoiding the issue yet again. I posed to you cows target food is not from here. So now prove grass is their target food. It should be easy for you so saying grass may not be from here is just more nonsense.


Well it is true that the title which matches with over a dozen other sites does indicate he is claiming it to be a fact.
And you accept it without question. Chalk up another thing you take on faith.


The findings are published in the NIH database you dim wit.
I asked for a link not an excuse. Try again. Provide a link where it gives the evidence for telepathy being a fact.


edit on 30-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Did you click the link? It links directly to the NIH search database...and yes, it's public. Problem is, if you search for Pye, nothing pops up!! Tons of other respectable authors though
OMG you can't be that dim witted. Pye is not discovering any facts, hes just revealing whats in all of our DNA. This is why this whole argument of him not revealing his sources is so stupid.




Ironic you're calling me a clown asking me to search the very database I linked in my post
It's a public domain you idiot, why are you guys so dim witted about this, I don't get it.


If he had published anything worthwile, his name would pop up in that database...and it DOESN'T!

Also, what do you mean when you say "he doesn't discover any facts, he's just revealing whats in all our DNA"? Are you finally admitting that he's just making crap up and not presenting objective evidence and facts?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 
I believe our science master just offered a new scientific term. 'revealing'.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Pye's BLAST results are his main "proof"...and also his biggest flaw. He checked the skull against that single database, and not the others...which would be standard procedure if the BLAST result came out negative. It's not even an uncommon occurrence as this happens a lot when only checking one database.

In short, just because one DNA database shows a negative, doesn't mean the same is automatically "extraterrestrial". The right way of going about it would be to check all the other databases. Funny enough Pye refuses to do so. I wonder if that's got something to do with the fact that selling his $6.90 ebooks might get hard if his skull is debunked


Also, BLAST doesn't claim the skull is extraterrestrial...that's just something Pye loves to say



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Where are you guys getting this idea that I have live in some fantasy world where I am infallible? I reiterated over and over again that our understanding, as a species, is quite fallible. Did you think that I consider myself part of a different species or something? All I ask from the trolls in this thread is that they respond to me in a concise and orderly manner (as I have attempted to do, but gave up after a certain point). I really don't care whether I'm right or not (all part of the learning process). If I'm wrong on a point, I don't just get all pi$sy and reactionary like some people I know. I also don't really get why people who don't like my demeanor bother to respond. It should be pretty obvious by now, that questioning my method of delivery, rather than the content, is absolutely pointless, except to make me mad (takes alot, believe it or not) I just consider it a learning experience. No offense, but some of you ATSers can be unbelievably dense sometimes. Also, yes, I was aware that anger is an emotion. It is one that I am intimately aware of. Way to push the density factor up to 11, sir.
edit on 30/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Yet again you delude yourself as I have always told you there is no such thing as target food as everyone else here has also. But seeing as though you now claim this to be a trick question you not only admit you have continuously lied your arguments based on target food now become defunct
Well you are correct again, there is no such thing as target food for humans, and that is the whole point, one that I was worried you weren't getting.

It was only a trick question as there honestly isn't a target food for humans. The reason is because we are not from here. There is no other reason. Can you think of one, that is the trick. Other reason that is.




You dont look for the ones that prove Pye or the bible. Seems like a one sided and closed minded search but hey you are tooth
That would be because I found Pyes video from a link and other site, searching for aliens tampering with our DNA. So it was in total hindsight.The reason I was searching for this to begin with was a long process of trying to figure out how it was that god laid out his punishments on us. The best way was to put myself in his shoes and ask how I would do it. DNA seemed like the only plausible way, and there were hints of DNA issues in the bible to start with. As an example where the four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man appear in the bible. It was obviously the work of someone that plays with DNA.




Do you copy and paste all your responses? Dont bother of course you do as you only have a couple that you recycle over and over again but you are answering my challenge to stop merely claiming evolution is false and back it up with evidence so your answer yet again does nut cut it.


Well what I gave you was the wiki to speciation. Speciation is actually the ONLY part of evolution that has ever been witnessed, and that actually only ever applies to aquatic life, bacteria, viruses and some insects. Humans are not part of the list, so your idea of humans evolving is false. They also don't mention primates or apes.

In addition macroevolution has never been observed in fossils or current life, so that is false as well.




Again stop claiming and start providing evidence
sure.

en.wikipedia.org...

Its all there, or rather its not, there is no evidence of it happening in humans.




Again a meaningless answer. Were you trying to be funny or just showing more stupidity?
You were commenting about "him" while I was referring to you.




You had best avoid the ants. Whoops you have done many times. So if it is plentiful then it is target food. Then by your definition all our food is target food.
Well the mere fact that a food is in abundance is not making it a target food alone. Mlk is in abundance but it really wasn't meant for us to drink right.




We may make apple pies because we can but we can and do eat them right off the tree and there are plenty of apples. There is an almost endless list so again your, as you admit trick question has been debunked. You had better offer a better definition.
Well the apple is a good example, at least of one that you could say is closer to being a target food. However you have to break it down. Is it a necessary food, and no its not.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well the apple is a good example, at least of one that you could say is closer to being a target food. However you have to break it down. Is it a necessary food, and no its not.


What do you mean with "break it down"??? In that mind of yours, is it only target food if it's in shake form?


Look, apples provide necessary nutrients, we can eat them, they are natural...ergo they are our natural target food. Compared to let's say...wood...or moss. Fish is target meat too. Everything you eat on a daily basis is food coming from nature...ergo natural.

Your entire argument is so illogical I'm still not sure whether you're joking or simply that blinded by Pye's nonsense that you can't accept reality anymore.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


The funny thing is, you guys all think that if one does not believe in the way the evolution of man is presented, than they instantly become creationists. You might be interested to know that I am in no way religious, and am, in a large sense, quite agnostic about things of that nature. Now, before I reiterate my point, how about a little background on my position. Pretty much every ancient civilization, from the Sumerians, to the Aztecs, has very eery similarities between their cultural identities (mythology, style of architecture, religious dogma). Now, when you consider the mainstream view that all of these civilizations were primitive and poorly educated (if at all), and the reality of the matter (tungsten/iridium "spark plug" found inside chunk of coal, stone masonry of that time far exceeds our "modern" capability). Now, when you consider the fact that every ancient civilization (or most, anyways) has some sort of mythology describing "flying chariots" and beings of an otherworldly and advanced nature. Now, this, by itself does sound a bit kooky, unless you consider the fact that the similarities between the accounts of different civilizations that are thousands of years and miles apart. I know it sounds strange, but I honestly believe that we are the product of ancient genetic engineering (not that we were transported here like some kooks think). I mean, look at the rise and fall of every civilization, from the Sumerians, to the Babylonians to the Egyptians, and beyond. They all had a brief period of existing in a primitive state, and then all of a sudden, there was a huge leap in the levels of sophistication in everything from language, to architecture. Also when you look at the fact that in some areas in the Middle East, there are radiation hotspots that rival Chernobyl and Fukushima, only there is nothing there but shadows burned into the rock (see what I'm getting at yet?). It seems to me that every few thousand years (how scientific eh? lol) mankind is sort of "re-booted" if you will. We reach the peak of our power for a brief period and then destroy ourselves. There is no real scientific way (that I have access to, at least) to measure the length of these periods, as certain phenomena that occur (OOPARTS[ out of place artifacts ], the Ghiza pyramids, Quetzecotl,etc.) are written off by scholars that cling to the beaten path as unexplainable. I honestly do not trust the main-stream scientific establishment any farther than I can throw them as, with the advent of corporate control in the last 80 or so years, it now exists only as a mechanism to further profits and sustain the status quo, while producing the illusion of progress. I believe we have actually been sliding backwards for a long while now. Meh. I'm a bit tired right now (just got off work) so I'm gonna have to cut that off there for now, but if you feel like being respectful about it, respond if you want to know the rest of my position and I will get back to you.
edit on 30/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What do you mean with "break it down"??? In that mind of yours, is it only target food if it's in shake form?
Thats cute but shakes are not target food either as there is process.




Look, apples provide necessary nutrients, we can eat them, they are natural...ergo they are our natural target food. Compared to let's say...wood...or moss. Fish is target meat too. Everything you eat on a daily basis is food coming from nature...ergo natural.
They are the closest to a target food but still far from it. We surly don't rely on them for a main part of our diet and they can't be found everywhere.




Your entire argument is so illogical I'm still not sure whether you're joking or simply that blinded by Pye's nonsense that you can't accept reality anymore.
Pye doesn't discuss target food.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by idmonster
 


Where are you guys getting this idea that I have live in some fantasy world where I am infallible? I reiterated over and over again that our understanding, as a species, is quite fallible. Did you think that I consider myself part of a different species or something? All I ask from the trolls in this thread is that they respond to me in a concise and orderly manner (as I have attempted to do, but gave up after a certain point). I really don't care whether I'm right or not (all part of the learning process). If I'm wrong on a point, I don't just get all pi$sy and reactionary like some people I know. I also don't really get why people who don't like my demeanor bother to respond. It should be pretty obvious by now, that questioning my method of delivery, rather than the content, is absolutely pointless, except to make me mad (takes alot, believe it or not) I just consider it a learning experience. No offense, but some of you ATSers can be unbelievably dense sometimes. Also, yes, I was aware that anger is an emotion. It is one that I am intimately aware of. Way to push the density factor up to 11, sir.
edit on 30/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)


Has it occured that some might reply because they find your demeanour amusing and almost see their conversation with you as baiting?

As to questioning the method of delivery rather than the content, the content gets lost in the method, and also lost in the fact that every time you refer to others, it is in a derogative manor. Look at the paragraph above, you refer to other posters as "pi$sy and reactionary" and "unbelievably dense".

Some people will just dismiss you as an argumentative troll purely based on statements like that, and that means that even if the applicable parts of your argument are well founded and backed up by reams of evidence, who's cares, a trolls a trolls a troll and only worthy of derision.

Having said that, I think the post quoted is probably one of your saner ones so far, ao while your in a better place, why not give us your argument against evolutiin and for whatever it is your expounding as an alternative theory. Personaly i am getting bored of tooths lack of any convincing evidence to support his hypothesis, and I hope you can provide more than Pye, Stichen and the bible.




top topics



 
31
<< 333  334  335    337  338  339 >>

log in

join