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: 374
31
<< 371  372  373    375  376  377 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





No. Just no. Humans fit perfectly into the evolution model. We've found DOZENS of intermediate species of hominids, and it goes back around 7 million years. Obviously if you even did the bare minimum reading on human evolution you'd know this, but yeah, let's just assume that creationist sites are true without any scientific evidence whatsoever to support it.
Just kind of curious there Barc, what system did they use to determine that these hominids are actually related to humans?

I'm just curious to know if this is yet just another assumption that has happened.




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
You always respond with rubbish and dishonest rubbish at that.

BTW its not we are finished it is, YOU ARE FINISHED. Zero credibility, zero evidence, zero defintions of your made up terms even though you have shown you knew exactly what was being asked for and why.

Nothing you write has any weight and certainly cannot be relied on to be your true views. No questions you ask need to be replied to as you have shown many times you ignore anything offered in reply.

You maintain putting two words together does not change their meaning tell me what costume swimming is?


edit on 1-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You always respond with rubbish and dishonest rubbish at that.

BTW its not we are finished it is, YOU ARE FINISHED. Zero credibility, zero evidence, zero defintions of your made up terms even though you have shown you knew exactly what was being asked for and why.

Nothing you write has any weight and certainly cannot be relied on to be your true views. No questions you ask need to be replied to as you have shown many times you ignore anything offered in reply.

You maintain putting two words together does not change their meaning tell me what costume swimming is?
Unless it has an assigned different meaning, it sounds like swimming in cognito, or swimming in a costume.

Your trying to tell me that putting two words together couldn't possibly use there common meaning.

Like for example...
Cold ran.
Acid rain.
Murkey water.
Loud mouth.
Stand tall.
Breath easy.
Fast car.
Radar trap.

These are all words and terms that have common meaning with there well known definitions. I think your blowing hot air in trying to say that I never supplied meanings to my words, of course not, I didn't make them. There terms are there terms and they are not to be changed. The only thing I made up was Target food.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Speaking of which, what does you are finished mean, I'm not able to find that one in any dictionary.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





No. Just no. Humans fit perfectly into the evolution model. We've found DOZENS of intermediate species of hominids, and it goes back around 7 million years. Obviously if you even did the bare minimum reading on human evolution you'd know this, but yeah, let's just assume that creationist sites are true without any scientific evidence whatsoever to support it.
Just kind of curious there Barc, what system did they use to determine that these hominids are actually related to humans?

I'm just curious to know if this is yet just another assumption that has happened.



Bone structure, genetics, anatomy, blood, facial structure, bipedality, brain size, and age verified by radiometric dating, atmospheric conditions, global temperature etc etc etc. I'd post links but I know I've already posted em in here and you ignored them, so this is the current consensus backed by facts and science. If you believe that science is false, then it's up to you to provide your own scientific facts to falsify it.
edit on 1-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Radar trap.



Radar is an object-detection system which uses radio waves to determine the range, altitude, direction, or speed of objects.

A trap is a device or tactic intended to catch an intruder, enemy, error, or substance.

Now we all know that a radar trap is a method by which the police use use radar detecting equipment to ascertain the speed of vehicles and provide evidence that said vehicle was travelling above the posted speed limit.

Using the definition of each word individualy, perhaps you could explain how radiowaves are captured in this "radar" trap? What form does this trap take? Are the "radars" imprisoned once thay have been trapped.

This is actualy a very good example of how two words combined change meaning from their singular forms.
edit on 1-5-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Bone structure, genetics, anatomy, blood, facial structure, bipedality, brain size, and age verified by radiometric dating, atmospheric conditions, global temperature etc etc etc. I'd post links but I know I've already posted em in here and you ignored them, so this is the current consensus backed by facts and science. If you believe that science is false, then it's up to you to provide your own scientific facts to falsify it.
How do these things tells us they are human related?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
How do these things tells us they are human related?


Decades and decades of research, experiments and comparisons between species.
edit on 1-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth

 



Unless it has an assigned different meaning, it sounds like swimming in cognito, or swimming in a costume.
Sounds like is not good enough. A guess is not good enough. Costume swimming has no meaning until someone defines it, your poor guesses are no good. Do you see how it works? Of course you do as no one can be that thick.


Like for example...
Cold ran.
Acid rain.
Murkey water.
Loud mouth.
Stand tall.
Breath easy.
Fast car.
Radar trap.

1. Never heard of cold ran, please define
2. Acid rain was clearly defined when the term was first used and has been described many times since
3. Murky water is a comparison with clear water. It is a degree of clarity.
4. Loud mouth. What does that mean? You may think you know but you dont. Mouths do not make sound. If you are refering to the slang usage this to has been defined.
5. Breath easy? Breath easier than what. Unless you put that in context it means nothing
6. Fast car. Faster than what? other cars? then you have to define what is a slow car as a model T ford was a fast car and now it is a bone shaker. Context is everything.
7 Radar trap has been addressed by ID and I have nothing more to add.

ALL the above except cold ran is in common use and their meanings have been made clear. Now lets see your made up terms defined because until you give them meaning they are a nonsense just like costume swimming.

But let me quote a near genius on the subject


Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term.


I would imagine that would apply to more than just words or terms you choose?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Using the definition of each word individualy, perhaps you could explain how radiowaves are captured in this "radar" trap? What form does this trap take? Are the "radars" imprisoned once thay have been trapped.

This is actualy a very good example of how two words combined change meaning from their singular forms.
I look at it more like a radar meets a trap. In this case the radar is the trap.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Decades and decades of research, experiments and comparisons between species.
Time, research, experiments and comparisons alone do not prove relationship.

If they have to compare between species, and this is simply in a physical manner, it surly doesn't prove relationship. I was looking for more of the smoking gun or the actuall event that takes place to prove this.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





1. Never heard of cold ran, please define
Suppose to be cold rain.




2. Acid rain was clearly defined when the term was first used and has been described many times since
But my point is, pretending you had no prior knowledge of the term, what would you think it is? You would probably be correct.




3. Murky water is a comparison with clear water. It is a degree of clarity.
4. Loud mouth. What does that mean? You may think you know but you dont. Mouths do not make sound. If you are refering to the slang usage this to has been defined.
5. Breath easy? Breath easier than what. Unless you put that in context it means nothing
6. Fast car. Faster than what? other cars? then you have to define what is a slow car as a model T ford was a fast car and now it is a bone shaker. Context is everything.
7 Radar trap has been addressed by ID and I have nothing more to add.


You can break down my terms in the exact same way.

For example...
"in the wild" "In the" is directly placing the word wild into a location, making it a noun. One of the quick descriptions of the word wild was Not civilized, or to be in nature or the wilderness. So in the wild should mean in the wilderness. Notice how wild is a root word of the word wilderness.

Lets look at an easier one...
Most.
I had used in the context of describing a ratio of secies that do or don't have target food. A quick look into a dictionary explains that this word usually means majority, or a larger example of something, which is exactly how I had used it.

Butthead...
Most people know this term as a put down, but what does it really mean? Well there are several different ways to look at it, either someone has there head up there ass or there head is like an ass, or there ass is where there head is. It doesn't matter which choice you look at, the outcome is always the same.
butt·head (bthd)
n. Vulgar Slang
A person regarded as stupid or inept

Redundant adaptation is the same way.
re·dun·dant/riˈdəndənt/Adjective: 1.No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2.(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.
Synonyms: superfluous - unnecessary - needless - excessive - spare

Redundant is an adjective therefore it's describing the following word adaptation.
Adaptation...
ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.
Synonyms: accommodation - adjustment - arrangement

Obviously I'm not referring to a movie so the only thing left is that its an action or process of adapting. Almost every one of the synonyms will work in place of redundant as an example.
Superfluous adaptation explains it.
Unnecessary adaptation explains it as well, from us being out of our element.
Needless adaptation explains it again from being out of our element.
Excessive adaptation also explains it as it is excessive as well.
Spare could explain it as well if you look at additional processes as being spares.

You can't be illiterate to the degree that you honestly don't understand this, and you need so much direction on it.

The use of the word natural carrys strict guidlines. While wiki claims that it may have no meaning in some areas, its true depending on when and where its used. There are areas that are strictly forbidden to use the term lightly. We don't even use natural food, we use organic food. Oddly enough it has the same meaning, with the only acception to it referring to the processes that handled the food and not the food itself. The processes or the lack of, is what makes it natural, even though its food and most would think its automatically natural. In other words, foods that have certain types of processes can be considered not natural even though they started out that way.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Here is yet another example of the problems you are faced with on here. Taking things out of context. Everyone I have encounterd on this thread has pretty much been guilty of this. Like assuming that evolution occurs in humans when its never been witnessed to. My favorite is the assumptions made about the telepathy article.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was criticized about this because it claims that telepathy is a proven fact. But the title was criticized claiming that the title was writting by the submitter of the article on here. The fact is that it is actually the original heading and its verbatim.

The reason why telepathy is being discovered in our bodys right now is because its something that has always been there to begin with. It's not something that evolved or something that was added to our bodys. Vestigal organs also prove this as well. We have abandonded abilitys as a result of punishments that were laid on us from god, and you guessed it, it even states so in the bible. So its appearing that I was once again correct in my path of intervention. Now its pretty hard to dismiss cold hard facts that are present in all of our bodys, a lot like the DNA that Pye talks about. It's pretty hard to just dissmiss such things when they are fact and are here for us to see with our own two eyes.

The resistance I ran into about the telepathy article was that its not fact and it it looks like its still being investigated and that the equipment had to be set up just the right way in order for it to work. What I'm saying is if he had any doubts about it being fact he surly wouldn't have named his article telepathy is a fact.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Here is yet another example of the problems you are faced with on here. Taking things out of context. Everyone I have encounterd on this thread has pretty much been guilty of this. Like assuming that evolution occurs in humans when its never been witnessed to. My favorite is the assumptions made about the telepathy article.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was criticized about this because it claims that telepathy is a proven fact. But the title was criticized claiming that the title was writting by the submitter of the article on here. The fact is that it is actually the original heading and its verbatim.

The reason why telepathy is being discovered in our bodys right now is because its something that has always been there to begin with. It's not something that evolved or something that was added to our bodys. Vestigal organs also prove this as well. We have abandonded abilitys as a result of punishments that were laid on us from god, and you guessed it, it even states so in the bible. So its appearing that I was once again correct in my path of intervention. Now its pretty hard to dismiss cold hard facts that are present in all of our bodys, a lot like the DNA that Pye talks about. It's pretty hard to just dissmiss such things when they are fact and are here for us to see with our own two eyes.

The resistance I ran into about the telepathy article was that its not fact and it it looks like its still being investigated and that the equipment had to be set up just the right way in order for it to work. What I'm saying is if he had any doubts about it being fact he surly wouldn't have named his article telepathy is a fact.


Darwinian selection continues to influence human evolution

phys.org...



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


This is a really nice article but you will notice that they never make any claims about what we evolved from much less what we are evolving into.

Plus its looking like the article was written by an evolutionist.
edit on 2-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


This is a really nice article but you will notice that they never make any claims about what we evolved from much less what we are evolving into.

Plus its looking like the article was written by an evolutionist.
edit on 2-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Did you expect it to to be written by a creationist? In a respectable scientific journal?


We know where we've evolved from, Tooth.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Edited to add: Here's a word for your dictionary search. My 9th grader asked me about it last night while studying for a test on speciation.

It's "phylogentic tree". No peeking.
edit on 5/3/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Decades and decades of research, experiments and comparisons between species.
Time, research, experiments and comparisons alone do not prove relationship.

If they have to compare between species, and this is simply in a physical manner, it surly doesn't prove relationship. I was looking for more of the smoking gun or the actuall event that takes place to prove this.


So you tell me. What precisely would prove relationship to you? Just because you refuse to study science and understand how they have reached their conclusions, doesn't make it wrong. I bolded precisely because I already know you will respond and say, "well anything that proves it", but you don't accept anything that proves it, so tell me exactly what it would be that would convince you.
edit on 3-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Decades and decades of research, experiments and comparisons between species.
Time, research, experiments and comparisons alone do not prove relationship.

If they have to compare between species, and this is simply in a physical manner, it surly doesn't prove relationship. I was looking for more of the smoking gun or the actuall event that takes place to prove this.


So you tell me. What precisely would prove relationship to you?


A phylogenetic tree?

Sorry, I just had to.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Suppose to be cold rain.
This may be in common use where you live. Where I am we have rain, sleet or snow. If I was interested in your answer I would ask you to explain cold rain


But my point is, pretending you had no prior knowledge of the term, what would you think it is? You would probably be correct.
Your point is not a valid point. You can use words pretty much how you like in common usage and within groups that understand the slang.

You are making up terms to explain things within science. They need to be understood and acurate. I should not have to explain this to somone who claims to be a science major.

To show how childish your babble appear. A person with fair hair is often decribed as a NATURAL BLONDE. A person who dyes their hair blonde is not known as an UNNATURAL BLONDE. Why because it is nonsense exactly as your term UNNATURAL FOOD. It is the babbling of a child.


You can break down my terms in the exact same way.
For the reasons given above, no I cannot break down the terms you made up. You are using them in a technical/science context. YOU need to describe their meaning or stop using them.


For example...
"in the wild" "In the" is directly placing the word wild into a location, making it a noun. One of the quick descriptions of the word wild was Not civilized, or to be in nature or the wilderness. So in the wild should mean in the wilderness. Notice how wild is a root word of the word wilderness.
I gave you a complete explanation why that is also the twittering of a booby. You chose to ignore it. Here it is again. Another chance for you to ignore it.


Again this is a flimsy meaningless description. Civilistation is an abstract. It needs mans buildings and social structure to give it meaning. The Romans thought of any people who were not Roman as uncivilised. A person with bad manners can be labeled uncivilised. Civilisation is NOT a place just as IN THE WILD does not exist as a place.

I know you will not accept that but this is the plain truth. A wild animal (untrained, not domesticated, not controlled) can and does live in our most advanced cities. In the wild needs a context to have any meaning and when you use it you do not put it in context which makes it meaningless.



Lets look at an easier one...
Most.
I had used in the context of describing a ratio of secies that do or don't have target food. A quick look into a dictionary explains that this word usually means majority, or a larger example of something, which is exactly how I had used it.
Exactly my point. You used it to describe a ratio yet refused to put a number to it. Why? Your happy to make up rediculous numbers for other things why not this?


Butthead...
Slang put into common usage by a cartoon. It has no significance to this discussion. Your made up terms in a scientific context.

Look too part 2 of this reply



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Did you expect it to to be written by a creationist? In a respectable scientific journal?
Neither, a neutral source would have been best.




phylogentic
I looked it up and thank you, it was very informative. Aside from the description of using molecular things to determine relation, I wasn't able to find any details that actually explain how this is suppose to work. I'm having nothing at this point to believe that Phylogenticss does anything.

I was more interested in knowing what the vehicle was that ties us to other living things. As far as I knew, DNA was as small as it goes, but maybe I'm wrong. When the definition of phylogenitics simply used the molecules as an argument for claims, it could simply be DNA.

The problem with using DNA as a determination is that on one hand you could say that finding a relationship simply means we were always the same species to begin with.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 371  372  373    375  376  377 >>

log in

join