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: 392
31
<< 389  390  391    393  394  395 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





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."
Than you should have been present with my plethora of prior questions that no one could answer. Seriously you will have to go back and read and see if you too are stumped.




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 ..."
My points have been made, you just have to read them. Choosing to not read them does not mean I have no valid points.




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 ....
Just because there is very little proof of things that happend back in biblical times, is not proof that it never happned. It's the same with aliens. Just because they are carful to not leave traces doesnt mean it never happened.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





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).
People have commented (very few I might add) but that doesn't mean anything has been debunked. In fact most have been silent on my questions and that hardly proves debunking.




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?
Thats because you lack the insight to understand how this is fact. In simple terms I can tell you that people can also eat toilet paper and toothpast, it doesn't mean its food 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$$
It's a fact, and its solid, I don't see you coming up with any information that proves me wrong, just calling me a moron, that doesnt mean you correct. The fact is, there is zero evidence that links us to any of the food that we eat, in enough of a way that we could identify any of it as a target food. Now looking at some of the other life here on earth you see a difference in how there is food that can be identified as target foods. Not with humans however.

I keep going back to the ant eater as an excellent example. There is no question he was designed to eat ants. I see nothing along this lines for humans, the fact is we are scavengers, and eat anything, including toilet paper and toothpaste.

www.youtube.com...

Your making an assumption that just because we have a process, and have food to eat, that it must be meant to be. You are in part correct. God alegedly provided us with many things (probably also from other planets) but also happen to not be intended for us. In essence we are getting by with substitutes. Your lack of insight in seeing this stems from not looking deep into connections between different species and how they eat. It is complicated as not everything here actually has target food, this also stems from other species being brought here as well as us. Besides, who ever would believe that a species has nothing to eat. This understanding has gone so deep that its clear that planets are formed in an eco balance where everything works together, in food and living balance. Earth is messed up because of the many other species that don't belong here as well as extinctions and coextinctions, causing collateral damage.

Of course evolutionists don't want to hear or acknowledge this, like Colin, as it obviously blows the whole theory of evolution out of the water. Regardless, the facts are here, all you have to do is open your eyes to see them and understand them. There is no way we are on our home planet, we don't even have any intended food. The bible makes it clear that things we were provided are not from our home, and that nothing here looks like that of our home, there was reason for this. The bible tells us we are not home, and of course in slavery we could earn our way back home. It's so depressing.




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
Again without the insight, I can see why it sounds odd, but with it, it totally makes sense. It's not my doing, I don't make the planets or the life, I'm just an observer. You also seem to be confusing the fact that we have many things to eat, with those things being intended for us. It's clear they aren't. If you wish to challange that idea, I suggest you go back to my definition of target food and see if you can break this, I tried, and I can't.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





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.
Well it was missunderstood is what I meant, it was meant to be about aliens, and not in a spiritiual sense.

Google Lloyd Pye human genetics and watch his video.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Welcome to the madness that this thread has become. 'Target food' has never been defined and so should not be accepted until it is.
Your such a liar Colin and you stimble over your own lies.

Would you like to explain to me how anyone is going to accept target food if it was never explained?

OOPS, busted again.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.
So what your saying here is that assumptions have been made for so long now, and accepted for so long now that they must continue to be correct. Your wrong and you just admitted it.




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.
I understand that but what backs this process, and what drives, it, we know zilch about it, because it doesn't exist.




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
None of which do we have any proof of that evolution is to blame for, but we go ahead and assume it is.




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.
I'm not arguing that they are calling changes evolution. I'm saying they are wrong for doing so without identifying it.




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.
We can find changes, but no nothing about whats behind them. IMO it was just a guessing game on something that actually doesn't exist.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Welcome to the madness that this thread has become. 'Target food' has never been defined and so should not be accepted until it is.
Your such a liar Colin and you stimble over your own lies.

Would you like to explain to me how anyone is going to accept target food if it was never explained?

OOPS, busted again.
More fairy stories from you again that does not match what everyone has seen. You have not defined what you mean by target food even though you have been asked many times.

I have already told you many times no one is going to accept target food if you dont explain it. You have not. It is not accepted until you do. You wont because you know it is a crackpot concept that cannot be defended.

As for me being the liar. It appears the concensus here is that honor is definitely yours and the only thing busted is your silly unfounded and plainly idiotic version of intervention and of course your dishonest approach to this thread and those on it.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
What you mean is I and others have crushed your nonsense at every point. You dont like the answers because they show how stupid your questions are and how little you understand the topic.

A question among many that YOU never answer with the same criteria that you demand from others is show 'We are not from here.' You have failed and continue to fail through all the 390 plus pages. You make up meaningless terms that you cannot define and so fail again.


No I just choose to not believe in things that aren't backed up.
No. You reject anything that threatens your childish fantasy. A fantasy that has nothing to back it up as shown by your failuure to do so. Reality must really scare you.


Intervention is redundantly backed up.
Here you go with your very poor use of english.


Your question doesn't make any sense. If there is other life out there, than the skys the limit with possibilities.
So another question you claim makes no sense because you have no answers to it. Here it is again.

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

You started your post telling me how I never answer your ignorance. I have again and yet again you avoid answering anything.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So what your saying here is that assumptions have been made for so long now, and accepted for so long now that they must continue to be correct. Your wrong and you just admitted it.

That's really what you got out of that?




I understand that but what backs this process, and what drives, it, we know zilch about it, because it doesn't exist.

What backs the process of rain? What backs the process of photosynthesis? What backs the process of the earth revolving around the sun? Nuclear fusion? These are all common facts that don't need anything special behind them in order to work, just like evolution. You ought to look at the processes themselves rather than for some mythical external force. Maybe you are seeking cause and effect? Your argument is way too vague to make heads or tails of.


I'm not arguing that they are calling changes evolution. I'm saying they are wrong for doing so without identifying it.

No, you are saying that genetic mutations do not count as evolution, which is doing nothing but playing word games.

Let me take a wild guess. You didn't order the free evolution DVDs yet.

If you've got specific questions about the theory itself, I'll answer them, but I'm done repeating myself about the basics. Every single question you ask is clearly a broad generalization that shows you haven't done even the bare minimum of reading. You haven't asked a single specific question relating to the actual theory of evolution in this entire thread. I won't repeat myself any more. Seek the information and deny ignorance. I'll be lurking to see if you come up with anything worthwhile, but it's been errr.. ummm.. entertaining I guess.

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



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





More fairy stories from you again that does not match what everyone has seen. You have not defined what you mean by target food even though you have been asked many times.

I have already told you many times no one is going to accept target food if you dont explain it. You have not. It is not accepted until you do. You wont because you know it is a crackpot concept that cannot be defended.

As for me being the liar. It appears the concensus here is that honor is definitely yours and the only thing busted is your silly unfounded and plainly idiotic version of intervention and of course your dishonest approach to this thread and those on it.
You have changed your story so many times Colin from me having never of explained the definitions and terms to you rejecting them. Sorry but your not the judge and jurry.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What you mean is I and others have crushed your nonsense at every point. You dont like the answers because they show how stupid your questions are and how little you understand the topic.
I seriously doubt that a lack of response is squashing my nonsense. There havent been any qualified answers which only means I'm correct.




A question among many that YOU never answer with the same criteria that you demand from others is show 'We are not from here.' You have failed and continue to fail through all the 390 plus pages. You make up meaningless terms that you cannot define and so fail again.
It doesn't matter if they are made up, you still could never answer them, your stumped, because its proof that we aren't from here.




No. You reject anything that threatens your childish fantasy. A fantasy that has nothing to back it up as shown by your failuure to do so. Reality must really scare you.
If my terms were out of fantasy you would have no problem answering them, but you can't, its a cold dose of reality.




Here you go with your very poor use of english.
What do you want, it is.




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

You started your post telling me how I never answer your ignorance. I have again and yet again you avoid answering anything
There is way more proof than that that a creator was involved. People were running and hiding on here when I brought up flagellum. And if you don't agree then perhaps you can explain how machanical gears have evolved as a biological lifeform that was NOT man created.

Perhaps you could explain why there seems to be a pattern in design, and simply saying ya its the connection of evolution. A creator can also have a pattern.

Perhaps you could explain the gaps of evolution and why we have no intermediate species before, now or in the future.

Bio diversity can be explained by having more than one creator as well.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





That's really what you got out of that?
Did you miss the point that evolution has never been identified as the reason for change, its only been assumed its to blame.




What backs the process of rain?
Evaporation.


What backs the process of photosynthesis?
A sun and chemical reaction.


What backs the process of the earth revolving around the sun?
quantum physics.


Nuclear fusion?
quantum physics.




These are all common facts that don't need anything special behind them in order to work, just like evolution. You ought to look at the processes themselves rather than for some mythical external force. Maybe you are seeking cause and effect? Your argument is way too vague to make heads or tails of.
Of course there are things behind them, and we have identified those, and your examples have also been identified ions ago.

What drives evolution is a hypothesis, or actually several, a total guessing game. Your choice, mutations, natural selection, or sexual selection. Of course we never know which one is to blame at any given time. Again a total guessing game, because none of this actually exists.




No, you are saying that genetic mutations do not count as evolution, which is doing nothing but playing word games.
Of course they count in evolutionism, but what I'm trying to say is that we are never able to prove that mutation was to blame for an occurance.




Let me take a wild guess. You didn't order the free evolution DVDs yet.
I was never able to find the address or the link, do you they pay for shipping to cause I'll order em. I'll watch em too.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Quantum physics doesn't make the earth go around the sun. By definition, quantum physics deals with the very small. If you wanna know why the earth goes around the sun, I suggest you read up on gravity




Also, it's really hard to take you serious if you keep on mentioning that "please buy my ebook" clown Pye



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Your not worth my time.

I read all 300+ pages.

There is only one thing I can now say.

The only thing I said that was incorrect was that 9 out of 10 people proved you wrong.
In fact, I would say 95% - 99% of the people that responded in this thread proved you wrong.
In fact, 90%+ of the people here think you are a crazy, a lier, and a straight fraud.


I wont argue with silliness.

The only advice I have for you is to visit a doctor, a psych, and more urgently an ER.
Quick! Before the Aliens come, and take you back from what you consider home!



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You have changed your story so many times Colin from me having never of explained the definitions and terms to you rejecting them. Sorry but your not the judge and jurry.
There are 390+ pages that show you to be the dishonest. ignorant troll. You have never supplied the definitions for your made up nonsense. You backtrack, avoid, ignore and run like a coward from anything that you cannot answer.

Your judge and jury is everyone that has read and took part in this thread. From what I see they all find you guilty of being a dishonest liar. An ignorant fool, deep in denial.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I seriously doubt that a lack of response is squashing my nonsense. There havent been any qualified answers which only means I'm correct.
The label earned by you of dishonest just does not do you justice.


390+ pages of people responding to you. Destroying your feeble fantasy every time and you call it lack of response

Your like a baby claiming 'I'm right your wrong' while throwing a hissy with your fingers in your ears and your eyes firmly shut.


It doesn't matter if they are made up, you still could never answer them, your stumped, because its proof that we aren't from here.
You do not answer a made up, undefined term. How ignorant are you? So you make up babbling nonsense which you refuse to explain/define and claim that as proof.

Are you sure you are a science major and borderline genius?


If my terms were out of fantasy you would have no problem answering them, but you can't, its a cold dose of reality.
Look back at all these pages. I have never had any problem crushing your nonsense, no one else has either. You have never managed yet to handle it. You ran from everything. Dismissed and avoided. Coward.


There is way more proof than that that a creator was involved. People were running and hiding on here when I brought up flagellum. And if you don't agree then perhaps you can explain how machanical gears have evolved as a biological lifeform that was NOT man created.
No one ran except you. You had a complete and detailed explanation given that you rejected with no counter argument given, just the usual tooth. 'I dont believe it' and the classic 'it came from a scientist so its biased.'


Perhaps you could explain why there seems to be a pattern in design, and simply saying ya its the connection of evolution. A creator can also have a pattern.

Perhaps you could explain the gaps of evolution and why we have no intermediate species before, now or in the future.

Bio diversity can be explained by having more than one creator as well.

Oh look here are your double standards showing again. You acuse Barcs of answering a question with a question claiming it doesnt work for you yet here you are avoiding my question by asking a list of questions.

This thread is about explaining the diversity we see today without refering to evolution. It is up to you to supply the answers.

So far you have offered. God may have used left over spare parts
and now we see diversity because we 'might' of had more than one creator.


Hold on
you dont accept assumptions. You need evidence to back anything up before you accept it.

Are you a borderline genius like a Mexican is a borderline American?


edit on 24-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

You're still arguing with someone that really believes he doesn't have to provide any objective evidence of his own for his intervention hypothesis in order to prove that it's true. He just thinks that by asking a vague, polymorphous question you can't answer to his abnormally high standards -- standards which are only applied to matters of evolution, never to his pet religion -- it somehow invalidates evolution. And that's not even counting the fact that whatever evidence you do provide he either decries as fake, claims is not conclusive enough, or misinterprets to such a degree that his interpretation isn't even consistent with the evidence presented.

I could understand continuing the discussion for the benefit of people who are reading but not commenting and may have questions, but this is no longer a discussion. He's effectively buried any useful posts under a thick strata of "nope nope nope nope aliens did it nope nope nope inconclusive nope nope nope nope redundant adaptational postulated unnatural food theoretical hypothesis nope nope nope". Sadly, the signal to noise ratio of this thread has dropped far to low to be of any use to anyone.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


What backs the process of rain?
Evaporation.


What backs the process of photosynthesis?
A sun and chemical reaction.


What backs the process of the earth revolving around the sun?
quantum physics.


Nuclear fusion?
quantum physics.

1. All of those things are parts of the processes except quantum physics. That has nothing to do with the earth's revolution or nuclear fusion. Well maybe not "nothing" to do with it, but in the same sense you could say Quantum physics backs evolution as well... if only quantum theory was more than a mathematical theory.

2. With all that said, why don't you consider genetic mutations to "back" evolution? It's way too easy to debunk you. Your best arguments are pure semantics and word games.




Of course there are things behind them, and we have identified those, and your examples have also been identified ions ago.

So genetic mutations have never been identified?


What drives evolution is a hypothesis, or actually several, a total guessing game.

Haha the wrongness just keeps coming. There aren't JUST hypotheses. There are plenty of factual science experiments that back evolution.


Your choice, mutations, natural selection, or sexual selection. Of course we never know which one is to blame at any given time. Again a total guessing game, because none of this actually exists.

Wrong again. All 3 are "to blame" for the diversity of life on earth and that process is known as evolution. You can't even get beyond the definition of evolution, let alone the theory and mechanisms.



Of course they count in evolutionism, but what I'm trying to say is that we are never able to prove that mutation was to blame for an occurance.

Of course evaporation counts in rainism, but we are never able to prove that evaporation was to blame for an occurrence. Dude you make no sense at all. Zero.




Let me take a wild guess. You didn't order the free evolution DVDs yet.
I was never able to find the address or the link, do you they pay for shipping to cause I'll order em. I'll watch em too.


www.hhmi.org...

Yes, they pay shipping. Start with constant change and common threads, then go to fossils, genes and mousetraps. Not that I'm expecting you to actually watch them, I've posted this at least 3 times in here.
edit on 24-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Quantum physics doesn't make the earth go around the sun. By definition, quantum physics deals with the very small. If you wanna know why the earth goes around the sun, I suggest you read up on gravity



Also, it's really hard to take you serious if you keep on mentioning that "please buy my ebook" clown Pye
Well than show me exactly who has debunked him. And don't try to troll with that same old lame excuse that you can't debunk Pye because his work is not on the table. Human DNA is public information, and has been for some time now.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Your not worth my time.

I read all 300+ pages.

There is only one thing I can now say.

The only thing I said that was incorrect was that 9 out of 10 people proved you wrong.
In fact, I would say 95% - 99% of the people that responded in this thread proved you wrong.
In fact, 90%+ of the people here think you are a crazy, a lier, and a straight fraud.


I wont argue with silliness.

The only advice I have for you is to visit a doctor, a psych, and more urgently an ER.
Quick! Before the Aliens come, and take you back from what you consider home!
Proven wrong? On what.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There are 390+ pages that show you to be the dishonest. ignorant troll. You have never supplied the definitions for your made up nonsense. You backtrack, avoid, ignore and run like a coward from anything that you cannot answer.

Your judge and jury is everyone that has read and took part in this thread. From what I see they all find you guilty of being a dishonest liar. An ignorant fool, deep in denial.
You went from accepting them and using them in your arrangment about ants, to rejecting them, to now claiming that I never gave them. Liar.




top topics



 
31
<< 389  390  391    393  394  395 >>

log in

join