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: 389
31
<< 386  387  388    390  391  392 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Agreed. Yeah it seems like the topic change is what killed this thread. Perhaps it may be best to create another one with the actual intended title, because all this thread does is attract the extreme folks and bible literalists, rather than anybody coming up with an alternative to evolution. Instead it's just people going back and forth over terminology and technicalities and people trying to post anti-evolution rhetoric, which isn't even the purpose. That tooth guy has been going for 200 pages on intervention theory, but hasn't once actually addressed the topic. Ah well, it was entertaining while it lasted




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
And nooooooooooooooooooow

The end is neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaar

Can somebody please clarify...am I allowed to drink milk or not?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Thanks Bunny That's pretty interesting actually. So the only part Tooth was actually right about was that this was discovered. Finally somebody has given evidence of a part of the human that has rapidly evolved. I've been looking for that for the longest time. So by rapidly, how rapidly are we talking, the 7 or so million years since we split from Chimps, or is this a more recent change effecting just the homo genus? I couldn't find that info in any of abstracts I was reading
Dont forget that while all that is going on, we had to of also been getting a lot of other changes as well. For example the changes in our hair, our tail bone, our skin and features, four times the brain matter, .

7million years is a long time but IMO not long enough.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

Colin, I agree with your idea to start a new thread to refocus the discussion. The sheer number of times that the true concept had to be explained to people who couldn't be bothered to read past the changed title and into the OP was pretty staggering. Maybe doing so will draw some of the people that really do have alternative models for biodiversity out of lurking.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 
Done. 'Explain Diversity Reloaded'



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





And nooooooooooooooooooow

The end is neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaar

Can somebody please clarify...am I allowed to drink milk or not?
Depends, where are you getting it from?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Agreed. Yeah it seems like the topic change is what killed this thread. Perhaps it may be best to create another one with the actual intended title, because all this thread does is attract the extreme folks and bible literalists, rather than anybody coming up with an alternative to evolution. Instead it's just people going back and forth over terminology and technicalities and people trying to post anti-evolution rhetoric, which isn't even the purpose. That tooth guy has been going for 200 pages on intervention theory, but hasn't once actually addressed the topic. Ah well, it was entertaining while it lasted
Yes I have multiple times. I keep saying that it could have just as easily of been a creator that explains diversity, from using recycled parts.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Show me. And by show me, I mean this, exactly:

1- Please write what parts of the Bible you are referring to.

2- Please explain why those parts have anything to do with intervention.

3- Please explain what you mean by "clear documentation."


4- Please, tell us
You obviously missed some pages. The parts I'm referring to is to many to list but for starters, you could understand that most of genesis is an ideal example of an abduction taking place. The Ezekiel chapter clearly explains a UFO falling from the sky as god is about to visit. Hebrews clearly states that EART IS NOT OUR HOME multiple times, and goes as far as talking about other planets and aliens.

What do they have to do with intervention, I think is self answered.

What I mean by clear documentation is if you read it just the way it sits, wihtout making claims of spirituality, it means what it means. We are not from here. We were placed here. Religion has taken the side that these comments were referring to the spiritual sense, and yet there is nothing to indicate thats the case.

I'm going by a NIV version of the bible, not sure of the author but I have looked at about half a dozen different and they match.

What I mean by intervention is simply that we did not evolve on this planet. IMO if we did evolve it would take trillions of years, and we don't have that long here on earth so there is a problem. Intervention means that we were placed here.

Transpermia is perhaps a better scientific word to use, but I think it only happens by accident, not on purpose.




Animals / Humans USE OXYGEN, and PRODUCE Carbon Dioxide.


Plants USE Carbon Dioxide, and PRODUCE OXYGEN.
Ya so what about it? there is nothing spectacular here that a creator couldn't create.

You seem to be perplexed by the whole idea of plants and humans sharing this. I have to tell you that everything on this planet actually works in this way, so there is a lot more magic going on with this planet aside from that, and you seem to be not noticing that.

As I said before, each planet must be a balanced eco system, and whoever placed us here, has upset the balance of this planet, along with many other things they also brought here. It's very complex, but basically someone either didn't know what they were doing, or didn't care.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I understand and agree that if reading the Bible, it completely sounds like God = Aliens (or Alien), literally.

A while ago I read parts of the Bible, just to research Creationist claims. I thought I was reading science fiction, as early on it became extremely apparent that "God" = "Alien" (or specifically, someone not of this Earth..

Not of this Earth


Yet, what proof does this highly edited collection of ancient books written by unknown authors carry towards Evolution?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





I understand and agree that if reading the Bible, it completely sounds like God = Aliens (or Alien), literally.

A while ago I read parts of the Bible, just to research Creationist claims. I thought I was reading science fiction, as early on it became extremely apparent that "God" = "Alien" (or specifically, someone not of this Earth..

Not of this Earth

Yet, what proof does this highly edited collection of ancient books written by unknown authors carry towards Evolution?
Well quite simply that there is no way we could share a common ancestor with apes if we aren't from here. This is what I have been going on about over 300 pages, things that prove we aren't from here, and there is just evidence hand over fist about it. Much of the unbelievable parts of the bible could be explained from Extra Terrestrial intervention. Not that its just easy to say that aliens are to blame but from what little we do know about them, they are like crazy ahead of us in the technology and science fields.

I suggested some of these findings to others on this thread, and presented them in open ended questions to see if there were any other possibilitys, and not a single question was anyone able to offer a good answer.

Target food is a good one, it appears that we have no assigned food yet we are suppose to have evolved here on earth. Who ever heard of a species not having food to eat. It's not as simple as it sounds, target food (or the lack of) means there is no INTENDED food for us to eat. The rules and concept that determine whats intended were falsly shadowed by a couple of others on this thread, but the facts that support the idea of target food stood up and proved we have no food here for us humans. We are either eating someone elses, or something elses foods, and we also manufacture some foods as well. A prime example is cows milk, not intended for humans, but we do rely on it, as something from our intended diet is missing. It's a multi level clue that we aren't from here.

Attempts were made to thwart off my direction by some pretending to not accept or understand the definition of Target food, but this was dozens of pages after they had allready participated and accepted the term.
I was never removed for being off topic in this thread so I can say at least the moderators were smart enough to understand my point of view while others on here sometimes pretended I was off topic. The bottom line is there is no way we could have evolved from here, if we clearly aren't from here to begin with.

As far as the main question of the thread, a creator could have just of easily of used recycled parts from other life, which could explain diversity while sharring much DNA. I'm not saying however that I totally buy the creator side, or the evolution side, I think there is something else out there that we haven't even begun to understand.
edit on 18-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
We are not in evolution. We are in extinction.

When you reduce 70 phyla to 30, that is extinction.

When you see species disappearing around you in real time, that is extinction.

Evolution would be the opposite. More phyla evolving. More varieties in species. More because evolution depends on time, and time provides more possibilities.

Evolution depends on survival of the fittest. 40 phyla that do not exist today were totally fit to survive. They did it for millions of years. Something eliminated them. Based on what I see today, it probably had something to do with the advent of human beings.

When you look at the fossil record, you see varieties of human beings that no longer exist; e.g., the "hobbit" people. Why are they gone? Likely larger humans killed them.

Where is the dodo bird? The carrier pidgeon? Killed by humans.

Call it evolution all you want, but they are gone. There were a lot of different varieties of life on this planet. Gone.

That is not evolution. That, my friend, is extinction.

Now, about the Japanese nuclear reactor that could kill all life on Earth....is that evolution, too?

Evolution is wrong because it does not fit the model of what has happened on Earth. Extinction does.

Explain out of place artifacts (google OOPARTS). Explain human and dinosaur footprints. Explain human footprints over 2 million years old. Evolution does not fit the model, folks. Don't drink that KoolAid.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Jim Scott because: add



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 
Your post seems to ignore almost any logic at all.


We are not in evolution. We are in extinction.
No we are surviving. When we stop doing that for any reason we become extinct.


When you reduce 70 phyla to 30, that is extinction.

When you see species disappearing around you in real time, that is extinction.
Of course when you see a species disapear thats extinction



Evolution would be the opposite. More phyla evolving. More varieties in species. More because evolution depends on time, and time provides more possibilities.
Why? The number of species is was and will be limited by the number of niches available. More variety within the species? You dont think we see massive diversity? You have not even explained the diversity we see how do you explain the lack of what you think should be more?


Evolution depends on survival of the fittest. 40 phyla that do not exist today were totally fit to survive.
You know your list is way too low. Your assumption that they were fit to survive is obviously flawed as they did not. You also make no mention of all the animals that took their place.


They did it for millions of years. Something eliminated them. Based on what I see today, it probably had something to do with the advent of human beings.
I see another 'lets hate the human' club member


When you look at the fossil record, you see varieties of human beings that no longer exist; e.g., the "hobbit" people. Why are they gone? Likely larger humans killed them.
Yep, definitely an anti human club member. Many things could have happened. Earth quakes, tsunami's, disease, starvation. Why have you lept on killed by the bigger boys?


Where is the dodo bird? The carrier pidgeon? Killed by humans.
And this means?


Call it evolution all you want, but they are gone. There were a lot of different varieties of life on this planet. Gone.
No one has ever called it evolution and yes lots of varieties are extinct, more than what survive today. Please explain that without refering to evolution.


That is not evolution. That, my friend, is extinction.



Now, about the Japanese nuclear reactor that could kill all life on Earth....is that evolution, too?



Evolution is wrong because it does not fit the model of what has happened on Earth. Extinction does.
What tosh. Evolution explains extinction and diversity and how life evolves. The model more than fits.
You on the otherhand cannot explain any of it other than to blame man that has not been present for most of it.


Explain out of place artifacts (google OOPARTS). Explain human and dinosaur footprints. Explain human footprints over 2 million years old. Evolution does not fit the model, folks. Don't drink that KoolAid.
Go look at all the other posts where this is shown to be hogwash not a site promoting it.

But please explain diversity and the evolution of life that fuels your extinction theory.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


FYI, extinction is one of the biggest parts of evolution.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


You are correct in case anyone tells you otherwise. The Holocene extinction is one of the worst yet. They say its from human involvement, but others on here are trying to convince me that humans belong on earth.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





FYI, extinction is one of the biggest parts of evolution.
What in the world could evolution possibly claim about extinctions?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Evolution has been debunked several times and not an honest scientist believes in it.

Check out the book by Michael behe titlted Darwin's Black box, it talks about everything.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by aids2bones2ghost
 

I realize I'm replying to a banned member, but maybe someone will read this and think twice about trying to use Behe's book as proof that "evolution has been debunked"...

The examples of irreducible complexity Behe gives in his book have all been shown to be reducibly complex. In other words, Behe's book has been debunked, not the theory of evolution. If you want to read a succinct explanation for why Behe's examples are wrong, review the testimony given by Dr. Kenneth Miller during the Kitzmiller trial. It's freely available from a number of sources. I'm not suggesting that scientific evidence given under oath is an absolute truth, it just makes for a convenient summary in this particular situation.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





FYI, extinction is one of the biggest parts of evolution.
What in the world could evolution possibly claim about extinctions?


Creatures that can't survive, and have less favorable mutations in their genes die out. Without extinction, evolution is moot. What exactly do you think natural selection is? Creatures compete and the better adapted ones survive while the others either move to a new environment or die out. The fact that humans have caused extinctions shows humans are the most well adapted creatures on the planet. Do you realize that humans are not the only ones to cause other creatures extinctions? That's the way the world has worked for billions of years. It's survival of the fittest and humans are by far, the smartest which makes them the most fit for our environment.
edit on 21-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Creatures that can't survive, and have less favorable mutations in their genes die out. Without extinction, evolution is moot. What exactly do you think natural selection is? Creatures compete and the better adapted ones survive while the others either move to a new environment or die out. The fact that humans have caused extinctions shows humans are the most well adapted creatures on the planet. Do you realize that humans are not the only ones to cause other creatures extinctions? That's the way the world has worked for billions of years. It's survival of the fittest and humans are by far, the smartest which makes them the most fit for our environment
I think only man would have a system that suceeds, by failing.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think only man would have a system that suceeds, by failing.


Is that not what "learning" is all about?




top topics



 
31
<< 386  387  388    390  391  392 >>

log in

join