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: 342
31
<< 339  340  341    343  344  345 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
And the TRAIN WRECK CONTINUES! I must be a Masochist! I keep telling myself....DON'T LOOK! IT CAN'T GET ANY MORE REDICULOUS! But just when I think that...it is and it does! LOL!

TOOTH....I will give you this. Even in the face of overwealming evidence and not just any evidence but PROVABLE EVIDENCE that you yourself could perform the experiment to prove EVOLUTION once and for all in about 30 to 40 minutes and costing about $100....you STILL stand by your beliefs and convictions as deluded as they are.

You would make one Hell of a Suicide Bomber! LOL! That was just a joke so easy! LOL!

I would ask only one thing of you...if you read my post on how to difinitively prove evolution in 30 to 40 minutes by buying a cheap Microscope...a Biology Book...a few latex gloves and a Breathing Mask....it will end the debate for you and you can see EVOLUTION HAPPENING with your own eyes!

A SMALL PRICE TO PAY for enlightenment....and it will not conflict with yours or anyone elses belief in GOD or how it is possible that GOD used the process of EVOLUTION to create the UNIVERSe or MULTIVERSE and everything, being or one in it. PLEASE! I am begging you to do this!
Split Infinity




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 






Not a definition of 'in the wild'
Well then perhaps you would understand the one from wiki better.

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice how they mention that humans sepeartate civilization and wildlife.

How stupid are you? You said


Natural foods would be anything that grows wild in the wild, unnatural foods are any that dont.
I asked for a definition of 'in the wild' and not wildlife which is a very different thing. Try again.
edit on 1-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You have to define redundant process first.
This is where more than one unnatural event occurs in order to complete the task. See the word excessive in the Synonyms?

www.englishforums.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





You have to define redundant process first.
This is where more than one unnatural event occurs in order to complete the task. See the word excessive in the Synonyms?

www.englishforums.com...
Your link is to unrelated rubbish. You still have not defined redundant process and now you need to explain your use of unnatural.

Edit

Also are you now saying that one unnatural event is ok but make it redundant? I hope you can see why I am asking for these definitions now as you seem to be in total confusion. No wonder you cannot grasp the information you have been given. Focus boy, focus.
edit on 1-4-2012 by colin42 because: confused by silly answer



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





And the TRAIN WRECK CONTINUES! I must be a Masochist! I keep telling myself....DON'T LOOK! IT CAN'T GET ANY MORE REDICULOUS! But just when I think that...it is and it does! LOL!

TOOTH....I will give you this. Even in the face of overwealming evidence and not just any evidence but PROVABLE EVIDENCE that you yourself could perform the experiment to prove EVOLUTION once and for all in about 30 to 40 minutes and costing about $100....you STILL stand by your beliefs and convictions as deluded as they are.

You would make one Hell of a Suicide Bomber! LOL! That was just a joke so easy! LOL!

I would ask only one thing of you...if you read my post on how to difinitively prove evolution in 30 to 40 minutes by buying a cheap Microscope...a Biology Book...a few latex gloves and a Breathing Mask....it will end the debate for you and you can see EVOLUTION HAPPENING with your own eyes!

A SMALL PRICE TO PAY for enlightenment....and it will not conflict with yours or anyone elses belief in GOD or how it is possible that GOD used the process of EVOLUTION to create the UNIVERSe or MULTIVERSE and everything, being or one in it. PLEASE! I am begging you to do this!
Split Infinity
And in what way exactly would I get to sample evolution.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Natural foods would be anything that grows wild in the wild, unnatural foods are any that dont.

I asked for a definition of 'in the wild' and not wildlife which is a very different thing. Try again
Man made foods are not natural, whats so hard to understand about that, aside from the fact that redundant processing is used to make it?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Jebus Christy,

You cant just throw the word redundant in front of a term and expect it to make sense.

For clarification I assume the definition you are applying is:




Definition of REDUNDANT
a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary


In which case you need to stop, because everytime during this entire thread, anyone has used the phrase adaptation within a species, particulary in the meaning of leading to speciation you have replied with "maybe its normal in a species" and then some drivel about purple eyes.

Well, I turn that back to you, all of our adaptaions are normal within our species and therfore can not come under the heading of redundant.

In fact. I'll go one further, if we were intelligently designed, by anyone, then everything about us has a purpose, and just because were not using it yet, doesnt mean our adaptations wont be useful to us in the future. (this is total BS btw, we cill continue to adapt as required to survive)

Explain to me why our adaptations are redundant.

As for "redundant processes", again I will assume you are using the first term above.

Why are the processes we are using excessive, why are they not normal, who is defining normality for you?

I can understand that the process we use are far different to the way the bushman, or the rainforest tribes live but so what! Whats not natural about using your intelligence to improve yeilds of foodstuffs, longevity of foodstuffs.

The ability of man to specialise within a community has freed us to pursue the non-essential, non-life sustaining tasks that have led us to the point of socialisation that were are now at.

It is possible to be totaly self sufficient, to not rely on others to provide you with the sustainance we require in order to live, to farm crops, and store them for consumtion when the seasons change and growing cannot occur, ask the amish.

You tooth seem to think that the only way we could be indigenous to this planet is if there were a single, and I mean single food stuff that we were surrounded by, that was available to us whenever we felt hungry, and that could be just picked and eaten.

Well you're a fool, there is not a single animal on this planet that has that luxury, not even the anteater (I know you have been fooled by the name, and it has already been shown that the anteater does not rely solely on ants.)

And what kind of a life would that be anyway, lazy fay b'stards would be the result, selfishness and an attitude of "I can have what I want when I want it, its my right". Well you cant, get over it. Theres no utopia waiting for you, just the harsh realities of life and while I can see from reading your posts that you long for it to be true, you pine for a place where you can scoop up the manna and skip through the meadows, ITS TIME TO WAKE UP NEO!!

Try the real world for a change, its not as scary as you think
edit on 1-4-2012 by idmonster because: switched ambrosia for manna, it seemed more appropriate



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
We know there is now.

We know something comes before now.

Something needs something to come before it, we assume.

So there was never a time of nothing, an ultimate beginning, according to our ability to interpret reality.

so there has always been a now, no begining to the ultimate reality, or there is something about the universe or its superset that we don't or can't understand.

Like two unrealities make a reality, God and a true origin from nothing.

If there is no beginning then the past is infinite, and beings infinitely old could exsist.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your link is to unrelated rubbish. You still have not defined redundant process and now you need to explain your use of unnatural.
Well again just replace the word redundant with excessive. Basically anytime you see multiple unnatural process taking place, this is happening.

Unnatural process can be seen anytime modern technology has to be used to achieve it. Like machines, Chemicals etc. With the exception of your example about ants using chemicals. If ants are equipped to harvest and use chemical for a basic purpose, then its natural. When humans do this its way more intensive and invasive, in other words its not natural.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Natural foods would be anything that grows wild in the wild, unnatural foods are any that dont.

I asked for a definition of 'in the wild' and not wildlife which is a very different thing. Try again
Man made foods are not natural, whats so hard to understand about that, aside from the fact that redundant processing is used to make it?
Well I will tell you what is so hard to understand.

What the hell is man made food? Take bread. Do we 'make the wheat? Do we make the yeast? Do we make the water?

You are really struggling to provide a full definition for your target food nonsense and it is YOUR construction. Dont know how long it is going to take you to realise it is nonsense but if you think these endless made up terms will distract from the original ant question you are mistaken.

So be my guest and keep putting forward more stupid terms and misunderstandings. I guess you have about 6 to 8 definitions that you are failing to provide definitions for.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
We see the world even when seeing the world has no value what so ever.

We see things that don't matter to our purpose in any way, yet we still see them.

Why do we see things that evolution has taught us do not matter in any way?

Our sight is a physical/chemical/psychologic process that exsists in its own way like a mountain or a thought.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Also are you now saying that one unnatural event is ok but make it redundant? I hope you can see why I am asking for these definitions now as you seem to be in total confusion. No wonder you cannot grasp the information you have been given. Focus boy, focus.
Ya I was trying to taylor this so you would understand it especially about the ants using chemicals.

Ants do so in a natural way, we don't. When we have to use machines, other chemicals, and heat, and mass process, and electronics and mass steps, there is nothing natural about it.

Natural would mean we simply do one thing, and would have the chemical. Sorry if I confused you on the on unnatural event, but it still explains the point either way you look at it.

The difference is simple, we never have one step to harvest chemicals, bugs do, so I figured you would understand this.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What the hell is man made food? Take bread. Do we 'make the wheat? Do we make the yeast? Do we make the water?
Well you will never find a loaf of bread growing on the ground, in a natural way, so maybe thats a better way to explain it. A long drawn out process is needed to make bread, including cooking. Bread is anything but natural and a perfect example of our attempts at manufacturing food for ourselves to fill a need with something that has been missing all along.




You are really struggling to provide a full definition for your target food nonsense and it is YOUR construction. Dont know how long it is going to take you to realise it is nonsense but if you think these endless made up terms will distract from the original ant question you are mistaken
I think what your trying to say is that you have sewn eyes. Lets see if you can get past the bread part. Bread does not magically appear in the wild, therefore its not a natural food.




So be my guest and keep putting forward more stupid terms and misunderstandings. I guess you have about 6 to 8 definitions that you are failing to provide definitions for.
I have explained them in there full definition. If you still don't understand then you are just being incredulous.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Also are you now saying that one unnatural event is ok but make it redundant? I hope you can see why I am asking for these definitions now as you seem to be in total confusion. No wonder you cannot grasp the information you have been given. Focus boy, focus.
Ya I was trying to taylor this so you would understand it especially about the ants using chemicals.

Ants do so in a natural way, we don't. When we have to use machines, other chemicals, and heat, and mass process, and electronics and mass steps, there is nothing natural about it.

Natural would mean we simply do one thing, and would have the chemical. Sorry if I confused you on the on unnatural event, but it still explains the point either way you look at it.

The difference is simple, we never have one step to harvest chemicals, bugs do, so I figured you would understand this.


Incorrect. The bombardier beetle has to mix 2 chemicals together to produce it defensive spray




Defense mechanism Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide, which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservoir are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gases, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen. Each time it does this, it shoots about 70 times very rapidly. The damage caused can be fatal to attacking insects and small creatures and is painful to human skin.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 

jimbo999:
"What evidence do you have of a Supreme Deity doing all this instead? And I'm afraid an ancient book doesn't count as evidence."

To throw in a different perception: that ancient book you mention (the bible) is its own evidence. From my observations, the bible appears to be the only "ancient" book that actually works in real life. Where Judeo/Christian principles are put into practice, society thrives. When Judeo/Christian principles are banned, society crumbles.
I've been to China and Viet Nam where Christianity is banned. I've seen the results, and they're not pretty.
In my lifetime, I've seen the decay of American society after Judeo/Christian ethics are sidelined.
The bible and biblical principles speak for themselves. My faith is based in a foundation that doesn't shift when society shifts.

I believe that Science and Theology will eventually agree with one other. It's all one thing.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
We have minds.

Why don't we think about what is most important?

Why don't we know what is the most important thing to think about?

Our minds are still evolving.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well again just replace the word redundant with excessive. Basically anytime you see multiple unnatural process taking place, this is happening.
So are you admitting that redundant processes is a nonsense term?


Unnatural process can be seen anytime modern technology has to be used to achieve it.
If an aircraft did not use use the physics of nature it would not fly. So even though it is a machine it flys in a natural way. It does not fly unnaturaly.


Like machines, Chemicals etc. With the exception of your example about ants using chemicals.
Explain why ants are exempt.


If ants are equipped to harvest and use chemical for a basic purpose, then its natural. When humans do this its way more intensive and invasive, in other words its not natural.
Boloney and not backed by anything more than because you say so. Human urine has been used to make leather, wash clothes and as a fixing agent for dyes so are these natural?

Everytime you come out with this garbage you look more brain damaged than ever. If humans farm, harvest and that makes them unnatural then ants are unnatural.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
And the TRAIN WRECK CONTINUES! I must be a Masochist! I keep telling myself....DON'T LOOK! IT CAN'T GET ANY MORE REDICULOUS! But just when I think that...it is and it does! LOL!

TOOTH....I will give you this. Even in the face of overwealming evidence and not just any evidence but PROVABLE EVIDENCE that you yourself could perform the experiment to prove EVOLUTION once and for all in about 30 to 40 minutes and costing about $100....you STILL stand by your beliefs and convictions as deluded as they are.

You would make one Hell of a Suicide Bomber! LOL! That was just a joke so easy! LOL!

I would ask only one thing of you...if you read my post on how to difinitively prove evolution in 30 to 40 minutes by buying a cheap Microscope...a Biology Book...a few latex gloves and a Breathing Mask....it will end the debate for you and you can see EVOLUTION HAPPENING with your own eyes!

A SMALL PRICE TO PAY for enlightenment....and it will not conflict with yours or anyone elses belief in GOD or how it is possible that GOD used the process of EVOLUTION to create the UNIVERSe or MULTIVERSE and everything, being or one in it. PLEASE! I am begging you to do this!
Split Infinity


Please by showing him how to weaponize anthrax......but edit the post above to remove latex gloves and face mask first



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Ya I was trying to taylor this so you would understand it especially about the ants using chemicals.
No you wrote that we could have one unnatural process but not two.


Ants do so in a natural way, we don't. When we have to use machines, other chemicals, and heat, and mass process, and electronics and mass steps, there is nothing natural about it.
Our machines and chemicals would not work if they did not follow the physics of nature. They do not work by magic and so are natural. Heat is natural whether it comes from the sun, as you said or from a fire so using heat to cook is natural. Again if the ants are doing what they do naturally then so do we.


Natural would mean we simply do one thing, and would have the chemical. Sorry if I confused you on the on unnatural event, but it still explains the point either way you look at it.
Again a stupid, ignorant view of the real world. So a lion that stalks, chases, kills, fights over ownership of the corpse before it eats is unnatural because it took more than one action before it ate?


The difference is simple, we never have one step to harvest chemicals, bugs do, so I figured you would understand this.
Nothing does. So whats your point. Still waiting for those definitions.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So are you admitting that redundant processes is a nonsense term?
Not at all, when its applied correctly it works well.




If an aircraft did not use use the physics of nature it would not fly. So even though it is a machine it flys in a natural way. It does not fly unnaturaly.
True but you don't see aircraft being born on the ground without the unnatural intervention from man. Man is always the missing link if your arguments. You are never able to expalin anything withou the hand of man. Unlike ants using chemicals, so its natural.




Explain why ants are exempt.
It's not that they are exempt its just that they don't exibit any signs of unnatural redundant adaptation.




Boloney and not backed by anything more than because you say so. Human urine has been used to make leather, wash clothes and as a fixing agent for dyes so are these natural?
Thats dollars to donuts colin. Clothing itself is not natural, in case you havent figured that out.

If you believe that clothing is natural, than you have to also believe that sewing machines, laundry machines, as well as cleaning chemicals are all natural as well, and they aren't. It's just obviously wrong.




Everytime you come out with this garbage you look more brain damaged than ever. If humans farm, harvest and that makes them unnatural then ants are unnatural.
If we each did it for ourselves and with our own hands, you might have an argument here.




top topics



 
31
<< 339  340  341    343  344  345 >>

log in

join