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: 413
31
<< 410  411  412    414  415  416 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Can't believe we're seriously arguing with someone claiming people can survive inside whales

Like a clip from Monty Python damnit
What do you mean "WE?" I haven't seen you present anything credible.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
the person who tried to teach you evolution is "survival of the fittest" may have been well intended, buts its horribly wrong on many different levels, the least of which all the negative information content that the phrase carries

hateful organizations or people with a blatant agenda try to push the "Darwinism means survival of the fittest" concept and it often times leads to violence and a horrendous group philosophy

evolution is the differential reproduction of molecules, its a fact of life, more so then gravity, and if you can prove otherwise with standards that meet a peer-review process than you will, without question, win a noble prize and be one of the most important people in the history of modern civilization


edit on 10-6-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have never heard of "govern English" what exactly is that? I'm not able to find it in any dictionary so you must have made it up.
That's because you took it out of context. We have witnessed you doing that many times. You know that link I supplied you about context that you never read either. To put it back in context 'the rules that govern English'. See how it works yet



Nope, like I have written twice now, all you have to do is google "natural definition" and you will get it
Nope. Your source, you supply it. It is obvious you refuse. We can only suspect the reason why but it is not a positive for you. Until then your ridiculous, unsourced statement is not acceptable.



Of course because I'm indicating evolution to also be a form of creation DUH!
Again your ignorance is showing. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. That is not an escape route for you.
Where is the evidence that supports that fact claimed back in your original statement?


But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.
Come on, your running out of time.



Its a good observation and obviously why I don't agree with the whole civilized part making the decision.
Mine may have been a good observation. Your answer is not adequate at all as this is the crux of the whole matter.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you.



It's been more than one person, and long ago.
Sorry but you have shown many times even in the last few pages alone that your word cannot be relied on. Source or it did not happen.



Not at all, in fact I linked it, you will have to go back and get the link, I'm not researching it again. It clearly states that according to wiki the bible is a historical document.
I quoted from your link. It showed clearly that your statement claiming the bible as 'clear documentation' was unfounded and misleading. Your claim that Wiki supported your claim that the bible was an historical document is clearly false, in fact it is a lie.

So you refer back to my post and address the argument I made calling your two statements into question. Failure to do so will result in those two false claims not being acceptable within an honest debate.


The only thing you have done which is the same thing you always do, is show how you can fit both feet in your mouth at the same time. You haven't proven anything.
Now try a logical, reasoned reply to my argument as the above as usual is not that.


edit on 10-6-2012 by colin42 because: We have witnessed you doing that many times



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish



To understand others explanations for diversity. Unfortunately this thread was infected and has become what you see today.
reply to post by colin42
 


It would be nice if we could see some real debating your original OP but now we are stuck in this endless game of worthless semantics.
Maybe it's time to ignore him so he will go embarrass himself in another thread.

I agree that discussion would be nice. I feel tooth is about to run out of acceptable terms and arguments due to his many losses. I have a sentence ready to go. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
'

What do you think?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
God/Satan did it.




are you serious?

--i mean, its usually only evolution or God/Satan... if there is a third option if have never heard it.

unless you count "i dont know".. which is probably the best bet actually
edit on 21-9-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)


Tehre is always:

" The aliens did it"



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have never heard of "govern English" what exactly is that? I'm not able to find it in any dictionary so you must have made it up.

That's because you took it out of context. We have witnessed you doing that many times. You know that link I supplied you about context that you never read either. To put it back in context 'the rules that govern English'. See how it works yet
I still have never head of anyone or anything governing English. I doubt seriously if its a term.




Nope, like I have written twice now, all you have to do is google "natural definition" and you will get it

Nope. Your source, you supply it. It is obvious you refuse. We can only suspect the reason why but it is not a positive for you. Until then your ridiculous, unsourced statement is not acceptable
I allready did, twice, so just deal with it.




Of course because I'm indicating evolution to also be a form of creation DUH!

Again your ignorance is showing. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. That is not an escape route for you. Where is the evidence that supports that fact claimed back in your original statement?
That depends on what you mean by creation. If your talking about the man in the bible, no thats not what I'm talking about. Creation is subject on its own you know. Anyhow evolution, at least in the way its being conveyed here, is a form of creation in case you have missed that. The creation of new life, through any means what so ever, is still creation.




Its a good observation and obviously why I don't agree with the whole civilized part making the decision.

Mine may have been a good observation. Your answer is not adequate at all as this is the crux of the whole matter.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you
Oh well, I never said I agreed with her.




Not at all, in fact I linked it, you will have to go back and get the link, I'm not researching it again. It clearly states that according to wiki the bible is a historical document.

I quoted from your link. It showed clearly that your statement claiming the bible as 'clear documentation' was unfounded and misleading. Your claim that Wiki supported your claim that the bible was an historical document is clearly false, in fact it is a lie.

So you refer back to my post and address the argument I made calling your two statements into question. Failure to do so will result in those two false claims not being acceptable within an honest debate.
It must be a new style of Colin truth, I know what I read, which is exactly why I posted it.




The only thing you have done which is the same thing you always do, is show how you can fit both feet in your mouth at the same time. You haven't proven anything.

Now try a logical, reasoned reply to my argument as the above as usual is not that
You haven't Colin, you havent won a single argument with me. I'm shocked you even continue on as it just makes you look bad.

By the way "reasonded reply" is not a valid term. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by flyingfish



To understand others explanations for diversity. Unfortunately this thread was infected and has become what you see today.
reply to post by colin42
 


It would be nice if we could see some real debating your original OP but now we are stuck in this endless game of worthless semantics.
Maybe it's time to ignore him so he will go embarrass himself in another thread.

I agree that discussion would be nice. I feel tooth is about to run out of acceptable terms and arguments due to his many losses. I have a sentence ready to go. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
'

What do you think?


Agreed and stared.

I think at this point if we keep entertaining unctuous and untrustworthy deceptions, we are simply allowing inflate ideals of perversion to prosper. On the otherhand if we ignore it, let him have the last word, there is still the rope of 400 pages he has already hung himself with.
Let it lie.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I still say its very odd how our ancestors bring nothing to the table as far as things we share with them. At best you can say they were hunter gathers, but not only is there no proof of that, but apes have no proof of doing that either. We share nothing with our supposed ancestors.

If they really were our ancestors, we would share so much with them, including but not limited to some communication, and probably some lifestyles as well.

We share zilch with them.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I still have never head of anyone or anything governing English. I doubt seriously if its a term.
Why am I not surprised you have no knowledge of the rules that govern english


I have linked you to it before. Again you must have never taken time to read it. Grammar

an account of these features; a set of rules accounting for these constructions: a grammar of English.



That depends on what you mean by creation. If your talking about the man in the bible, no thats not what I'm talking about. Creation is subject on its own you know. Anyhow evolution, at least in the way its being conveyed here, is a form of creation in case you have missed that. The creation of new life, through any means what so ever, is still creation.
You never stop to think, ever. Creation is Creation

1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

2. the fact of being created.

3. something that is or has been created.

4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.

5. the world; universe.
Whereas Evolution is

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
As you have been told many times. Nothing to do with creation or the process of creation.

So I take it that you are not going to supply the supporting evidence of your so called fact the beaver was designed. Please do not refer to it again. As you have lost the point again.


Oh well, I never said I agreed with her.
Not good enough. Try again and remember failure to respond results in you loosing the right to use natural or not natural or unnatural when referring to humans.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you.


It must be a new style of Colin truth, I know what I read, which is exactly why I posted it.
What a shame. I have shown you, using the information supplied in your link that the bible is far from clear documentation and that Wiki does NOT state the bible is an historical document. You have yet again failed to give an answer to the argument made. You have now lost the ability to refer to the bible as an historical document and your false statement that it is supported by Wiki.

I know you will try but you will not get an answer to anything that contains it.



You haven't Colin, you havent won a single argument with me. I'm shocked you even continue on as it just makes you look bad.
You failed, crashed and burned. You lost.


By the way "reasonded reply" is not a valid term. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
Your correct I should have wrote: 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Actually, evolution vs creationism are BOTH science. It's just that the term 'creationism' is synonymous with 'magical sky-god' who waved his hands in the air and then VOILA!! mankind is born.....

To 'create' something means to take put together a new form out of parts.....in all biblical or 'religious' doctrine, they state that humans were 'created' by the gods. Now, I am in no way religious. However I do support the Ancient Alien Theory, which supposes that these 'gods' were what we today call 'aliens'. I seriously believe that we should not discount the many civilizations- that had distances and time between them -as ll being delusional, and coming up with the exact same 'myths'....

A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this planet.

We are a hybrid between a species that originates on this planet, and one that does not.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I still say its very odd how our ancestors bring nothing to the table as far as things we share with them. At best you can say they were hunter gathers, but not only is there no proof of that, but apes have no proof of doing that either. We share nothing with our supposed ancestors.

If they really were our ancestors, we would share so much with them, including but not limited to some communication, and probably some lifestyles as well.

We share zilch with them.


Exactly!

A voice box, for example, does not 'evolve' over time...something that primates do not have.

We have 96% similarities with the primate as far as DNA, but 4% of scientist call 'mystery' or 'junk' DNA.

Why? Because as stated earlier, we are a hybrid (genetically engineered) between a terrestrial species (primate) and a non-terrestrial species- also known in ancient times as 'gods'.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



Actually, evolution vs creationism are BOTH science. It's just that the term 'creationism' is synonymous with 'magical sky-god' who waved his hands in the air and then VOILA!! mankind is born.....
Actually Evolution is science and creationism is not. Creation Science


To 'create' something means to take put together a new form out of parts.....in all biblical or 'religious' doctrine, they state that humans were 'created' by the gods. Now, I am in no way religious. However I do support the Ancient Alien Theory, which supposes that these 'gods' were what we today call 'aliens'.
The ancient alien theory has anecdotal evidence that requires belief to accept. The amount of things one has to believe means it is a belief system.


A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this planet.
Then you have not looked close enough or got your information from a biased source.


We are a hybrid between a species that originates on this planet, and one that does not.
The DNA evidence points to the mingling of early human and Neanderthal so you are correct.

Now explain the diversity we see today using the ancient alien theory. The thread topic: Explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

edit on 10-6-2012 by colin42 because: The thread topic: Explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I still say its very odd how our ancestors bring nothing to the table as far as things we share with them.
If 'they' are our ancestors then 'they' brought us to the table. Who are you referring to as 'they'?


At best you can say they were hunter gathers, but not only is there no proof of that, but apes have no proof of doing that either. We share nothing with our supposed ancestors.
Nope. We have overwhelming evidence that we were once a hunter gatherer species. Some of us still are. Have I mentioned the Bushmen?

Chimps have been filmed actively hunting for food, meat. So the Chimp lifestyle as a hunter gatherer is fully documented so you fail here as well.

Apes is a big group be more specific.


If they really were our ancestors, we would share so much with them, including but not limited to some communication, and probably some lifestyles as well.
Are you referring to our common ancestor or other apes?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



A voice box, for example, does not 'evolve' over time...something that primates do not have.
From Grunting to Gabbing

To make these sounds — and talk — humans use the same basic apparatus that chimps have: lungs, throat, voice box, tongue and lips.



We have 96% similarities with the primate as far as DNA, but 4% of scientist call 'mystery' or 'junk' DNA.

Why? Because as stated earlier, we are a hybrid (genetically engineered) between a terrestrial species (primate) and a non-terrestrial species- also known in ancient times as 'gods'.
Please show how you jumped to that conclusion.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The DNA evidence points to the mingling of early human and Neanderthal so you are correct.


Not just Neanderthal but Denisovan as well.
Entire Genome of Extinct Human Decoded
edit on 10-6-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


But I was right that they aren't evolving. How can a mule evolve?


Boy oh Boy oh Boy !

Who suggested that the mule was evolving?

You are quite posiibly witnessing a speciation event and are too dim to realise it.

The Horse and the Donkey shared a common ancestor. At some point back in time, their common ancestors became divided became split into two groups of animals and isolated from each other.

During this time of separation each animal became more suired to the environment in which it found itself.

When the two animals were re-introduced to each other, enough changes had occured that they were unable to produce viable offspring, that is, they were now two different species.

Had the time between separation and and reintroduction been longer, it is quite possible that no offspring, viable or otherwise could have been produced, had the gap been shorter, then maybe they could have produced viable offspring (such as happens with the wolf dog).


It could be the case that the original ancestor was actualy a horse and that a small group of them got seperated and evloved into donkeys (or vice versa). At some point during the evolution of the donkey it would have looked like a donkey, but have been able to produce viable offspring with the horse. In this sequence, the donkey would be a subspecies of the horse.

Its only at the point of being unable to produce viable offspring the we recognise a difference in species.

So, while a dog or wolf sperm, can fuse with a wolf or dog ova and produce viable offspring....they are the same species.

Got it yet?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 





A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this planet.


Would you please provide documentation of this DNA and specifically why it does not follow the 'natural order of things' .
edit on 10-6-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I still have never head of anyone or anything governing English. I doubt seriously if its a term.

Why am I not surprised you have no knowledge of the rules that govern english

I have linked you to it before. Again you must have never taken time to read it. Grammar
This is called grammar. No where in there does it mention governing English.




You never stop to think, ever. Creation is Creation
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

2. the fact of being created.

3. something that is or has been created.

4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.

5. the world; universe
Thats what I'm saying.




Whereas Evolution is
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations
And though this event, supposedly new species can be created.




As you have been told many times. Nothing to do with creation or the process of creation.

So I take it that you are not going to supply the supporting evidence of your so called fact the beaver was designed. Please do not refer to it again. As you have lost the point again.
If your maintaining that it evolved, then I'm sticking to it also being created. That species either came into existence from a creator, or from evolution, either way, it was created somehow.




Oh well, I never said I agreed with her.

Not good enough. Try again and remember failure to respond results in you loosing the right to use natural or not natural or unnatural when referring to humans.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you.
Oh give me a break, I'm not backing her definition. You have to remember that she has other beliefs that don't match mine.

Dont ask me to defend her understanding, I don't agree with it.




It must be a new style of Colin truth, I know what I read, which is exactly why I posted it.

What a shame. I have shown you, using the information supplied in your link that the bible is far from clear documentation and that Wiki does NOT state the bible is an historical document. You have yet again failed to give an answer to the argument made. You have now lost the ability to refer to the bible as an historical document and your false statement that it is supported by Wiki.
Ok I'm going to post this again, for the last time, so if you miss it, to bad for you.

Here is the link...
en.wikipedia.org...
Here is the section...
Archaeological and historical research
Here is the phrase...
the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information

Now in case you missed it, which I'm sure you did, I will post it again...

Here is the link...
en.wikipedia.org...
Here is the section...
Archaeological and historical research
Here is the phrase...
the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information


Now you have it a total of 4 times from the first post about it.




I know you will try but you will not get an answer to anything that contains it.


You haven't Colin, you havent won a single argument with me. I'm shocked you even continue on as it just makes you look bad.

You failed, crashed and burned. You lost.
So if I have seriously lost the last 400 pages, why have you decided to engage in an ongoing discussion with me?




By the way "reasonded reply" is not a valid term. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

Your correct I should have wrote: 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
It was your term, you made it up.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We only have 3 types of antibiotics. In the past when I would visit a doctor for an infection, a specific one was usually issued. Now two are issued because of new strains that have emerged. These new strains are the planets natural way to fight off infection.


Stop making stuff up...!

en.wikipedia.org...

These new strains are not "the planets natural way to fight off infection.", that is a childish view of how the world works and imbues the planet with a Disney-esque type personality.

These new strains are a perfect example of evolution occuring in the wild in response to environmental changes.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 





Actually, evolution vs creationism are BOTH science. It's just that the term 'creationism' is synonymous with 'magical sky-god' who waved his hands in the air and then VOILA!! mankind is born.....

To 'create' something means to take put together a new form out of parts.....in all biblical or 'religious' doctrine, they state that humans were 'created' by the gods. Now, I am in no way religious. However I do support the Ancient Alien Theory, which supposes that these 'gods' were what we today call 'aliens'. I seriously believe that we should not discount the many civilizations- that had distances and time between them -as ll being delusional, and coming up with the exact same 'myths'....

A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this planet.

We are a hybrid between a species that originates on this planet, and one that does not.
But you probably didn't know that there is a lot more that agrees with your understanding, not just ancient aliens. Von Daniken, Lloyd Pye, Sitchen, and even the bible itself.

This is what I have been trying to teach these guys but they honestly think we evolved. There is a plethora of reasons that all show we aren't from here but these guys maintain we are from here, even though there seems to be no proof of such.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 410  411  412    414  415  416 >>

log in

join