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: 391
31
<< 388  389  390    392  393  394 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The biggest problem seems to be that both extreme sides refuse to give an inch or even consider the other side and the answer is somewhere between the two... IMO




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





It could be taken that way... I look for us some day to find that creationism and evolution intersect at some point, or at least that's what the part of me that believes in God wants.
I think the fact we have flagelum, is proof there is a creator out there.

There is no way that a living cell with gears could have evolved. It's not human made either its nautral.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





We DO know what evolution looks like. We can measure the genetic mutations passed down from generation to generation. What you are saying is like saying, "I find it hard to believe that rain is to blame for all the water falling from the sky." It's the same thing.
So then what exactly does evolution look like?

And only agree slightly with your analogy.




Your half baked interpretation of Intervention poses many more questions than evolution does.
Except for how and why we came to exist on this planet.




The only reason evolution poses so many questions to you is because you don't understand it at all and haven't tried. Changes in species can be traced on the genetic level and in the fossil record. Again, you are claiming that change is not evolution, when genetic change is what DEFINES evolution. "Yeah, we see the genetic mutations and natural selection, but who's to say that's evolution?". The dictionary, for one.
But again, how does changes of ANY type constituite evolution?




That isn't an assumption. It is based on our measurements of human height all across the world.
So then you admit that an assumption is made based on observations of curent life, and not on anything scientific. It's as though your saying, ... well most of us have to be normal so this is what normal is, and not considered to be a change in itself.
How do you know that? Do you have a genetic manual that tells us what each life is suppose to be like regardless of what we consider to be normal?




Genetic mutations are measurable as well.

I bet they are, but how do we measure them to be because of evolution?




That alone debunks your entire premise of evolution . You might be able to get away with saying that mutations are guided by something else, but again it would be an assumption, and wouldn't negate the evolutionary process.
Well your assuming first. I don't have anything to tell me its because of evolution.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by BloodSister
 





Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?
It's a very good point Blood, and I also find it odd how that common ancestor has dissapeared off the face of the earth and not left any bones.

The kicker is in our mtDNA. Taken straight from the article of mitochondrial eve in wiki, our race never dipped below tens of thousands. It is perhaps one of the oddest parts in believing in intervention. Did, or better asked, could aliens have abducted and transported tens of thousands of us?

This is why it's clear to me that the bible is a book of genocide, in so many ways. Control and punishment are the basis for slavery, not a happy book by any means. I have never counted the number of punishments but I could guess its well over 100. The odd part is that its never explained (or is it) how exactly these punishaments will be carried out, just what they are. Of course understanding them for what they truly are, can be a trick as well. So Lloyd Pye has this video called human genetics, and reveals that our human DNA not only shows signs of being tampered with, but has way more than its fair share of genetic defects.

Pye explains this as humans were genetically engineered species, and I'm thinking that it was actually all of the punishemnts that god handed down to us. You see we always looked up to him as a loving god, probably because he never killed us all, and assumed that he never came through on most of those punishements, but in fact he did. We are living out our sentances now, starting with only living 80 years instead of 1000. Living with defects and sickeness and mental disorders that we are still having a problem to this day getting control of.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


Your half baked interpretation of Intervention poses many more questions than evolution does.
Except for how and why we came to exist on this planet.


You must mean PRECISELY how we came to exist on this planet.




But again, how does changes of ANY type constituite evolution?

Name one single type of change in an organism that isn't influenced by DNA.




So then you admit that an assumption is made based on observations of curent life, and not on anything scientific. It's as though your saying, ... well most of us have to be normal so this is what normal is, and not considered to be a change in itself.
How do you know that? Do you have a genetic manual that tells us what each life is suppose to be like regardless of what we consider to be normal?


Well genetics are pretty much blueprints for your physical attributes. But just because something is statistically more probable than another does not mean that it is "normal". It's most likely that a human will grow to be between 5 and 7 feet. That doesn't mean it's impossible for someone to be shorter or taller, it just means that it's not as probable. You are once again broadly generalizing by using a term such as normal that has no value in science. It's a complete red herring.




Genetic mutations are measurable as well.

I bet they are, but how do we measure them to be because of evolution?

Genetic mutations ARE evolution. How many times do I have to tell you that? Read the definition of biological evolution. That's exactly what it means. Genetic mutations + natural selection + time = evolution. All 3 have been proven to exist, therefor the definition of evolution is true. It's not about evolution causing genetic mutations. Evolution is just the name for it.



Well your assuming first. I don't have anything to tell me its because of evolution.

I have not made a single assumption in ANY of my posts. Not one. Everything I'm saying is backed by scientific research.
edit on 22-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I have done a lot of research, and to be honest, evolution is just an easy answer for us to deal with.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Name one single type of change in an organism that isn't influenced by DNA.
Your answering my question with a question, which isn't working for me.

But to answer yours, I don't know of any and that includes evolution. From your angle, evolution must be some sort of super bug that not only know how to change our DNA, but also knows why it wants to do, and it does so stealth so that we can't identify it. If we could, we would be able to blame evolution for some birth defects, which is never the case.

Evolution has never been witnessed, or tracked. The vehicle has never even been identified.




Well genetics are pretty much blueprints for your physical attributes. But just because something is statistically more probable than another does not mean that it is "normal".
Then you are understanding and agreeing with me because I'm saying we have know way to know one way or the other.




It's most likely that a human will grow to be between 5 and 7 feet. That doesn't mean it's impossible for someone to be shorter or taller, it just means that it's not as probable. You are once again broadly generalizing by using a term such as normal that has no value in science. It's a complete red herring.
Exactly, yet its how we identify a so called change that we would call evolution in progress.




Genetic mutations ARE evolution.
Now your assuming. Genetic mutations are genetic mutations. It's never been witnessed so you can't make that statment. You can guess that it could be evolution but without having the ability to identify it, it's going to be an assumption.




How many times do I have to tell you that? Read the definition of biological evolution. That's exactly what it means. Genetic mutations + natural selection + time = evolution. All 3 have been proven to exist, therefor the definition of evolution is true. It's not about evolution causing genetic mutations. Evolution is just the name for it.
I dont doubt that the events exist, if fact I'm sure they do, I'm saying no one has had or will have the ability to blame evolution for those events, its never been identified. We don't know what it looks like, why it acts, much less how.

I have never heard of changes being scientifically to blame for evolution.




I have not made a single assumption in ANY of my posts. Not one. Everything I'm saying is backed by scientific research
Well I'm sure some assumptions have been made at some point. How can you scientifically claim that evolution is to blame for certain changes when we can't see it, we can't trace it, we don't know what it looks like, we don't know what its motive is.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BloodSister
 





I have done a lot of research, and to be honest, evolution is just an easy answer for us to deal with.
I agree again, yet in its complexity its akin to a rube goldberg machine that doesn't actually work. I have never seen anything with so many hypothesis in my life, none of which seem to be backed up by scientific evidence. It's a sham.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by BloodSister
 





I have done a lot of research, and to be honest, evolution is just an easy answer for us to deal with.
I agree again, yet in its complexity its akin to a rube goldberg machine that doesn't actually work. I have never seen anything with so many hypothesis in my life, none of which seem to be backed up by scientific evidence. It's a sham.
Really? Well intervention struggles to come up with even an hypothesis and your version has no substance at all and that really has no science to back it up in any way yet you choose to believe that.

Reading through your latest posts I wonder why you post here as you have no intention or ability to understand anything you are shown. Even down to writing there is no scientific evidence to back up evolution. Your level of denial is unsurpassed and nothing to be proud of.


Your answering my question with a question, which isn't working for me.
You wrote that to Barcs, YOU. The person that never answers any points/questions but it follows your two faced stance of demanding answers and evidence from others which you reject with no reasoned argument yet never testing yourself against the same demands.

Show with evidence how intervention explains the diversity we see around us today. 'god used spare parts' is not suffice.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Yet, what proof does this highly edited collection of ancient books written by unknown authors carry towards Evolution?
Not a damn thing, thats why I didn't answer it.


Tooth, you make no sense.




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.


You have provided no proof (ZERO) that "we aren't from here." Until you can provide EVIDENCE that "we aren't from here" than you CAN NOT use statement's such as "there is no way we could share a common ancestor with apes if we aren't from here."


I aint reading 300 pages of your crazyiness and lies. You still cannot make a coherent point and provide real evidence for anything. And again you lier, "Much of the unbelievable parts of the bible could be explained from ..."

As you just said, bible = no proof at all, so if you going to use anything Bible related, by your own definition your wrong.

Please provide ANY evidence about aliens ....





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.


I didn't read all 300 pages but I have been reading the last 50+.......

You suggested nonsense, and 9 outta 10 people debunked you very easily.

In fact, you still have never provided evidence for anything (that hasn't here yet been proven false).




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.


Your a moron.

6 billion people eat millions of types of foods and you saying all the food billions of people eat is not intended for us?

You know, you are arguing against 6 + billion people.

Go tell a starving child that food is not intended for them you a$$




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.


billions of people eating daily.

The fact that if you don't eat you will die within a month (and no water you die within a few days), yet if you eat you wont die and you will live for many years.

You know what? CURRENTLY, the ONLY source of food that the Human Species has access to is on planet Earth.

THE ONLY food that Human's as a species ever ate came from planet Earth. (CURRENTLY) we have not found ANY food on ANY other planet yet. I'm not saying that nutrion doesn't exist on other planet's; I AM saying it wasn't found yet.

THE ONLY FOOD EVER EATEN BY HUMAN'S IS ON THIS PLANET AND YOUR SAYING IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR US?

Crazy



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by BloodSister
 





Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?
It's a very good point Blood, and I also find it odd how that common ancestor has dissapeared off the face of the earth and not left any bones.

The kicker is in our mtDNA. Taken straight from the article of mitochondrial eve in wiki, our race never dipped below tens of thousands. It is perhaps one of the oddest parts in believing in intervention. Did, or better asked, could aliens have abducted and transported tens of thousands of us?

This is why it's clear to me that the bible is a book of genocide, in so many ways. Control and punishment are the basis for slavery, not a happy book by any means. I have never counted the number of punishments but I could guess its well over 100. The odd part is that its never explained (or is it) how exactly these punishaments will be carried out, just what they are. Of course understanding them for what they truly are, can be a trick as well. So Lloyd Pye has this video called human genetics, and reveals that our human DNA not only shows signs of being tampered with, but has way more than its fair share of genetic defects.

Pye explains this as humans were genetically engineered species, and I'm thinking that it was actually all of the punishemnts that god handed down to us. You see we always looked up to him as a loving god, probably because he never killed us all, and assumed that he never came through on most of those punishements, but in fact he did. We are living out our sentances now, starting with only living 80 years instead of 1000. Living with defects and sickeness and mental disorders that we are still having a problem to this day getting control of.


What happened with the bible doesn't prove a damn thing?

Two pages later, your using (ironically) the nastiest parts of the Bible which you already said you think is false that instead of being false it's aliens?

Who is "Pye" send me a link. I wanna see who is brainwashing you.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by flyingfish

Really? Old world monkeys or new world monkeys? No apes from monkeys? You must have some new information please share


Apes did not evolve from present monkeys, they each evolved from a common ancestor


*That's the way it was explained to me and I don't really care enough about it to research it any further, so that's what I'm going with.
If you have other information, there's a good chance the explanation given to me has changed.
edit on 22-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

"Apes did not evolve from present monkeys" -Nice editing..
Does anyone really even think that's what we are talking about? Ridiculous answer



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish



"Apes did not evolve from present monkeys" -Nice editing..
Does anyone really even think that's what we are talking about? Ridiculous answer


That's what you asked, why would you ask a question that you didn't want the answer to?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by flyingfish



"Apes did not evolve from present monkeys" -Nice editing..
Does anyone really even think that's what we are talking about? Ridiculous answer


That's what you asked, why would you ask a question that you didn't want the answer to?


Your not serious are you? If so this conversation is way beyond your scope of understanding.
I'm referring to a monophyletic clade of extinct monkeys NOT present monkeys.
Somehow I think you knew this and are playing semantic games but I could be wrong.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Your not serious are you? If so this conversation is way beyond your scope of understanding.
I'm referring to a monophyletic clade of extinct monkeys NOT present monkeys.
Somehow I think you knew this and are playing semantic games but I could be wrong.


Dewd, seriously, do I look like the type that would play games?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 
Welcome to the madness that this thread has become. 'Target food' has never been defined and so should not be accepted until it is.

If you do try to make sense of it and show it has no meaning or validity he will change its meaning. As you have already discovered tooth has trouble with reality and honesty.

When you show many other animals have a varied diet he brings in his version of 'unnatural' or worse case scenario, 'They may not be from here either'.

If you intend to join the club my best advice is to treat this as a source of amusement. Any other approach will cost you in loss of your IQ and murdered braincells.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BloodSister
I have done a lot of research, and to be honest, evolution is just an easy answer for us to deal with.


Yeah, totally. Evolution is just some made up answer that's easy for us, so we believe it, whereas creationism is formulated by scientific experiments, theories and hypotheses that prove it.
You've done a LOT of research.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
391 pages and tooth STILL doesn't get the difference between evolution and abiogenesis...this is really quite sad



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


Name one single type of change in an organism that isn't influenced by DNA.
Your answering my question with a question, which isn't working for me.

So now you prove that you don't even know what a question is. You asked how we knew that change within creatures is a result of evolution. Genetic mutations happen in DNA, so you need to provide me with a source that shows change in creatures is the result of something else or that change happens not in the DNA. Because a change in DNA is EVOLUTION by definition. You won't, though.


Evolution has never been witnessed, or tracked. The vehicle has never even been identified.

Back to the original lie. At least you always have something to fall back on
. What vehicle? Evolution isn't a mode of transportation, it's a process of genetic changes and survival.




It's most likely that a human will grow to be between 5 and 7 feet. That doesn't mean it's impossible for someone to be shorter or taller, it just means that it's not as probable. You are once again broadly generalizing by using a term such as normal that has no value in science. It's a complete red herring.
Exactly, yet its how we identify a so called change that we would call evolution in progress.

No it's not. We look at hominid A and compare him to hominid B and see the clear difference between the 2 creatures in the 2 time periods. Normal has nothing to do with it. Nothing is "normal". A change is anything that's different, such as brain size, skin color, amount of body hair, bone structure, etc.




Genetic mutations ARE evolution.
Now your assuming. Genetic mutations are genetic mutations. It's never been witnessed so you can't make that statment. You can guess that it could be evolution but without having the ability to identify it, it's going to be an assumption.

Honestly I don't even know why I bother explaining anything to you. You instantly ignore and dismiss everything I say, dishonestly. THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION IS GENETIC MUTATIONS. Stop ignoring this and the conversation might progress. I WILL NOT explain this again. If you don't even know the basic definition of evolution, you have no place trying to debunk it. Scientists have been studying it for decades. I'll trust them over some random guy on the internet, thanks.



Well I'm sure some assumptions have been made at some point. How can you scientifically claim that evolution is to blame for certain changes when we can't see it, we can't trace it, we don't know what it looks like, we don't know what its motive is


How can you scientifically claim that rain is to blame for water falling from the sky?

Stop with the dishonesty. WE CAN SEE IT. WE CAN TRACE IT, WE KNOW what genetic change looks like. You just make stuff because it sounds good to your world view.. Enough of the lies.
edit on 23-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Really? Well intervention struggles to come up with even an hypothesis and your version has no substance at all and that really has no science to back it up in any way yet you choose to believe that.
Well sure it does, the plethora of questions that I have quizzed you with, which you have been unable to answer, all suggests that we aren't from here.




Reading through your latest posts I wonder why you post here as you have no intention or ability to understand anything you are shown. Even down to writing there is no scientific evidence to back up evolution. Your level of denial is unsurpassed and nothing to be proud of.
No I just choose to not believe in things that aren't backed up. Intervention is redundantly backed up.




You wrote that to Barcs, YOU. The person that never answers any points/questions but it follows your two faced stance of demanding answers and evidence from others which you reject with no reasoned argument yet never testing yourself against the same demands.

Show with evidence how intervention explains the diversity we see around us today. 'god used spare parts' is not suffice.
Your question doesn't make any sense. If there is other life out there, than the skys the limit with possibilities.




top topics



 
31
<< 388  389  390    392  393  394 >>

log in

join