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: 419
31
<< 416  417  418    420  421  422 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


OK....I couldn't let this pass as it gets to the root of tooth's problem.



Then you must have some mixed feelings thinking we evolved from here when you also think we possibly aren't even from here.


First....No, I never said "I think we aren't from here". That is you not comprehending what I posted and re-phrasing it yet again. Go re-read it.

To the point;

Actually it's quite the opposite. Being able to incorporate new information, facts, reasoning, through study, experimentation with repeatable and multiple independent source demonstrations and observations, leaves me thoroughly satisfied. No faith required. Science/study at it's best. No fear of re-considering my position as new info / facts become available....no dogma


For others following this thread........some brevity





Done like dinner...
edit on 17-6-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 



OK....I couldn't let this pass as it gets to the root of tooth's problem.




I'm entertained!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


You never said you think we arent from here...
Here is a quote of what you wrote...




I can't believe that I replied to this nonsense again. The funny thing is, I have researched alien intervention deeply and do think there is a possibility that it did indeed occur. At the same time, the evidence for evolution is blindly obvious and does not go against intervention. In other words ( save you re-phrasing my sentence), intervention and evolution can go hand in hand. Did we receive a evolutionary "bump" in the past...perhaps, but we know that evolution is happening.


How can you admitt you believed it occured, then turn around and claim you never said it and try to say I'm making it up.




Actually it's quite the opposite. Being able to incorporate new information, facts, reasoning, through study, experimentation with repeatable and multiple independent source demonstrations and observations, leaves me thoroughly satisfied. No faith required. Science/study at it's best. No fear of re-considering my position as new info / facts become available....no dogma
Well I actually agree with you there, I think there is actually to much incorporating going on.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   





"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." Stephen Hawking

edit on 18-6-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Anonymous404
 


Now here is something to ponder about not being able to prove evolution. Unlike any alien theory, evolution has no excuse to not be proven. Aliens do not live here, and therefore there is good reason why its so hard to prove. On the other hand evolution is happening everywhere and under our noses, yet we can't prove it. I'll take it one step further. You have past, present and future.

None of which can be used to prove evolution, which is total BS. Sure they have proven some cases of speciation, but they have no proof that evolution is causing it. I say past because you should be able to compare fossils with todays life and determine microevoltuion, and they have failed to do this. I say present because you should be able to witness micro and macro evolution in its mid stages, and again they have failed to do this. Future I say because we should be able to see species brancing off, and we don't.


I'm guessing by this response that the DVDs still haven't come? I'm surprised as I ordered something around the same time and I already got it. Anyways I'm waiting to discuss these lectures with you. Heck, I might watch some of those again for old time's sake. How about we hop on skype and watch em together? If you have questions, just reference me a time / section of the video and I'll be happy to answer. Please reference specifics.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 





Grimms' Fairy Tales is also a historical document. By your logic, that collection of stories are actual real accounts of history, too.

If I were to come here and use this collection of stories as evidence that the characters contained in them are true and the events actually happened, wouldn't I need to bring something else to back that up? A book cannot be used as evidence that what is contained in that book is true.
Well there is no way you can prove or disprove something from that erra. The fact is that there were to many people involved in the making of the bible for it to be fake.

Again you use the word fact with nothing to support that fact.

If you cannot prove or disprove something from that era then you also cannot claim it is clear documentation as you continue to do even after failing to address the points I made challenging that very statement. As usual your dishonest approach is clear to see.

Your claim that many people were involved in 'making' the bible means nothing at all. What evidence backs up those stories however is not and you have none.

So your claim once again that the bible is clear documentation is dishonest, baseless and quite frankly within a scientific context, complete nonsense. So until you can supply evidence for your unfounded claim: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I was quoting a major new find in science about ADHD being linked to smoking pregnancies. You don't think they are wrong as well do you?
Nope. You have written what you understand causes ADHD and your conclusion that it has an effect on the mechanics of evolution.

You have obviously rejected the answers you have been given, again without reason so now it is your turn.

Supply the link and quote the part where it states this. Don’t just supply a link. Supply the link, the quote and the argument otherwise this is just another unfounded fantasy you conjured up to support your home spun religion.

You know what failure to do this results in.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I got them, I watched Fossils Genes and moustraps, and he didn't have anything I didn't allready know, it mostly seemed like he was promoting his book.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Again you use the word fact with nothing to support that fact.
Its a well known fact that the bible is a plethora of statements written by different authors.

bibleq.info...




If you cannot prove or disprove something from that era then you also cannot claim it is clear documentation as you continue to do even after failing to address the points I made challenging that very statement. As usual your dishonest approach is clear to see
Well having it written and having it proven are two totally different things, they are not one in the same. Granted it was written some time ago, which is also why some things are so hard to prove.




Your claim that many people were involved in 'making' the bible means nothing at all. What evidence backs up those stories however is not and you have none.
It's the same direction in disproving it as well. You have no proof that it didn't happen. The bible is still the largest seller of all books on this planet and I would seriously doubt that its considered to be a sci fi book.




So your claim once again that the bible is clear documentation is dishonest, baseless and quite frankly within a scientific context, complete nonsense. So until you can supply evidence for your unfounded claim: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.
My claim term as you put it has been supplied several times. I'm not going to continue to present them if your going to obviously ignore them.

It's clear from multiple angles that earth is NOT our home, and the bible concurs.

Just because you don't believe it, or refuse to read it or believe it is not proof that its not real.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Nope. You have written what you understand causes ADHD and your conclusion that it has an effect on the mechanics of evolution.

You have obviously rejected the answers you have been given, again without reason so now it is your turn.

Supply the link and quote the part where it states this. Don’t just supply a link. Supply the link, the quote and the argument otherwise this is just another unfounded fantasy you conjured up to support your home spun religion.

You know what failure to do this results in.
Who ever said I rejected any answers.
The only thing I have rejected is that its being accepted as a part of evolution without identifying it. This might be to deep for you to understand. My point in all this is that ADHD appears as a change, just like other changes, and observed to be part of evolution, when in fact it's not.

The next thing you know your going to try to convince me that abilitys are also passed on through evolution, just like Love.
So be honest now, is love part of evolution? Because love does get passed down through the family.

There is no fantasy here. ADHD causes a change in our genes, and would appear to an evolutionist as evolution. It's a change, and there is no way to identify the difference between man made changes to our genes and other changes, therefore they would all appear to be made by evolution, but in fact they aren't.

I have proven in this first of all that all changes are NOT made by evolution, I have also proven that they can't be identified, therefore there is no way to prove any changes made or not made by evolution. Scientists are assuming that any change qualifies as being evolution and that is WRONG. Not all (if any) are in fact evolution.

I made this claim long before I had thought of or brought up the ADHD example and I was right all along, changes are being assumed to be evoltuion when in fact they aren't.

DNA cannont discriminate between genetic differences and invoked ADHD. Just like how at this time, people are unable to detect the difference. I warrned you this was happening, now I proved that it is. I'm betting money that ALL of the changes that are happening to DNA have a valid non evolution reason for them, but that we have no way of knowing at this time.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


I got them, I watched Fossils Genes and moustraps, and he didn't have anything I didn't allready know, it mostly seemed like he was promoting his book.


So you understood everything in the lecture, and acknowledge it's true and you already knew it?

If you haven't, check out constant change and common threads. It focuses more on natural selection, seems like a good part of your misunderstandings are with that aspect of evolution. He does a very good job explaining it.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Why does Tooth pick and choose which parts of science to understand like he does with the christian bible?



edit on 6/18/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Its a well known fact that the bible is a plethora of statements written by different authors.
Do you know any other word than plethora? Who cares how many people wrote the bible or indeed how many more were left out when they decided to cherry pick what message they wanted to spin. You have no supporting evidence and that means in a scientific context you have no basis for calling it 'clear historical documentation'. End of story.


Well having it written and having it proven are two totally different things, they are not one in the same. Granted it was written some time ago, which is also why some things are so hard to prove.
Again all you have done is confirm why you cannot claim it as clear historical documentation. To continue to do so is dishonest.


It's the same direction in disproving it as well.
It is not up to me to disprove it. It is up to you to prove it if you want to claim it is an historical document. It is quite a simple concept and one you seem incapable of understanding.


You have no proof that it didn't happen.
I don’t need to. See above


The bible is still the largest seller of all books on this planet and I would seriously doubt that its considered to be a sci fi book.
I could care less how many bibles have been sold and given away over many years. Whether it is classed as sci fi or not I also don’t care about. What is pertinent to this thread is you have no justification for the claims you make about its accuracy. You can refer to it all you like but to claim it as fact based and clear historical documentation is dishonest and frankly ignorant.


My claim term as you put it has been supplied several times. I'm not going to continue to present them if your going to obviously ignore them.
You never addressed my points. You answered in the same dishonest way you always do. You discussed anything but the points I raised leaving your 'term/claim’ invalid on this thread. No further comment



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Who ever said I rejected any answers.
Everyone that has taken part.



This might be to deep for you to understand. My point in all this is that ADHD appears as a change, just like other changes, and observed to be part of evolution, when in fact it's not.
What is obvious here is that you again refuse to provide any links, quotes and argument in support of your childish, unintelligent claims formed from ignorance. The only conclusion is that you have nothing to support them or your rejection of the answers you were given.



The next thing you know your going to try to convince me that abilitys are also passed on through evolution, just like Love.
So be honest now, is love part of evolution? Because love does get passed down through the family.
I have no interest in your straw man avoidance.



There is no fantasy here. ADHD causes a change in our genes, and would appear to an evolutionist as evolution.
But as usual you refuse to supply anything more than your uninformed half baked ideas which remain your fantasy. Another failure



I have proven in this first of all that all changes are NOT made by evolution, I have also proven that they can't be identified, therefore there is no way to prove any changes made or not made by evolution.
Thankfully proof is not you giving one of your unsupported sermons on life according to tooth. You have got no clue about how to present a real argument and have provided no evidence of the claims of proof you claim to have made. You fail again, as usual.



Scientists are assuming that any change qualifies as being evolution and that is WRONG. Not all (if any) are in fact evolution.
I made this claim long before I had thought of or brought up the ADHD example and I was right all along, changes are being assumed to be evoltuion when in fact they aren't.
Nope. You have latched onto another of your unfounded claims despite having explanations of why you are wrong spoon fed to you which you reject with nothing more than what you believe. Fail
BTW It evolution not evoltuion. Your insane hatred for a word is showing again


DNA cannont discriminate between genetic differences and invoked ADHD. Just like how at this time, people are unable to detect the difference. I warrned you this was happening, now I proved that it is.
Your statement above shows how ignorant you are of this subject. No need to say more other than your spelling is also as poor as your malformed fantasy world.


I'm betting money that ALL of the changes that are happening to DNA have a valid non evolution reason for them, but that we have no way of knowing at this time.
Don’t bet, provide evidence. What am I saying? That is another thing you don’t believe in


Alas you were warned. You again failed to provide the links, quotes and supporting argument and so. when referring to your unfounded claims for ADHD: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





So you understood everything in the lecture, and acknowledge it's true and you already knew it?

If you haven't, check out constant change and common threads. It focuses more on natural selection, seems like a good part of your misunderstandings are with that aspect of evolution. He does a very good job explaining it.
I never said I acknowledge its true.

None of these discs say constant change and common threads ):



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 





Why does Tooth pick and choose which parts of science to understand like he does with the christian bible?
It's not that I just pick and choose, its that scientists don't know everything and I know this, and others obviously don't.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





So you understood everything in the lecture, and acknowledge it's true and you already knew it?

If you haven't, check out constant change and common threads. It focuses more on natural selection, seems like a good part of your misunderstandings are with that aspect of evolution. He does a very good job explaining it.
I never said I acknowledge its true.

None of these discs say constant change and common threads ):


Which parts are wrong? Give me specific time slots and specifics.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Do you know any other word than plethora? Who cares how many people wrote the bible or indeed how many more were left out when they decided to cherry pick what message they wanted to spin. You have no supporting evidence and that means in a scientific context you have no basis for calling it 'clear historical documentation'. End of story.
But thats where your mistaken because as I have allready pointed out to you that I'm not actually calling it a hostorical document, wiki is.


en.wikipedia.org...




Well having it written and having it proven are two totally different things, they are not one in the same. Granted it was written some time ago, which is also why some things are so hard to prove.

Again all you have done is confirm why you cannot claim it as clear historical documentation. To continue to do so is dishonest.
I have allready proven that it is listed as a hostorical document according to wiki, so move on and get over it.




It's the same direction in disproving it as well.

It is not up to me to disprove it. It is up to you to prove it if you want to claim it is an historical document. It is quite a simple concept and one you seem incapable of understanding.
But I'm not making any claims, I'm just quoting wiki.




You have no proof that it didn't happen.

I don’t need to. See above
Just like trying to prove evolution, you sure do know how to pick impossible ones.




The bible is still the largest seller of all books on this planet and I would seriously doubt that its considered to be a sci fi book.

I could care less how many bibles have been sold and given away over many years. Whether it is classed as sci fi or not I also don’t care about. What is pertinent to this thread is you have no justification for the claims you make about its accuracy. You can refer to it all you like but to claim it as fact based and clear historical documentation is dishonest and frankly ignorant.
I see, and you have single handedly disproved intervention? And at the same time proven evolution? I don't think so.




My claim term as you put it has been supplied several times. I'm not going to continue to present them if your going to obviously ignore them.

You never addressed my points. You answered in the same dishonest way you always do. You discussed anything but the points I raised leaving your 'term/claim’ invalid on this thread. No further comment
You can only hide from the truth for so long Colin. How long are you going to ignore my terms because you cant bare to face the harsh reality of the truth?




Who ever said I rejected any answers.

Everyone that has taken part.
And don't reject or hide, or ignore facts presented to me like you do.




This might be to deep for you to understand. My point in all this is that ADHD appears as a change, just like other changes, and observed to be part of evolution, when in fact it's not.

What is obvious here is that you again refuse to provide any links, quotes and argument in support of your childish, unintelligent claims formed from ignorance. The only conclusion is that you have nothing to support them or your rejection of the answers you were given
And what links have you ignored this time, that your wanting to continue to ignore?




I have proven in this first of all that all changes are NOT made by evolution, I have also proven that they can't be identified, therefore there is no way to prove any changes made or not made by evolution.

Thankfully proof is not you giving one of your unsupported sermons on life according to tooth. You have got no clue about how to present a real argument and have provided no evidence of the claims of proof you claim to have made. You fail again, as usual.
But I still did succeed as you were unable to provide answers to my many questions that explains intervention and disproves evolution.




Scientists are assuming that any change qualifies as being evolution and that is WRONG. Not all (if any) are in fact evolution.
I made this claim long before I had thought of or brought up the ADHD example and I was right all along, changes are being assumed to be evoltuion when in fact they aren't.

Nope. You have latched onto another of your unfounded claims despite having explanations of why you are wrong spoon fed to you which you reject with nothing more than what you believe. Fail BTW It evolution not evoltuion. Your insane hatred for a word is showing again
The only thing I have been spoon fed is what the trolls on this thread have been issuing me. Are you going to say they are now wrong.




DNA cannont discriminate between genetic differences and inv



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





DNA cannont discriminate between genetic differences and invoked ADHD. Just like how at this time, people are unable to detect the difference. I warrned you this was happening, now I proved that it is.

Your statement above shows how ignorant you are of this subject. No need to say more other than your spelling is also as poor as your malformed fantasy world.
I can always tell when I'm on track with my research, because you run and hide and fail to address my points.




I'm betting money that ALL of the changes that are happening to DNA have a valid non evolution reason for them, but that we have no way of knowing at this time.

Don’t bet, provide evidence. What am I saying? That is another thing you don’t believe in

Alas you were warned. You again failed to provide the links, quotes and supporting argument and so. when referring to your unfounded claims for ADHD: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.
There are no links when I'm doing the work Colin. My unfound claims were proven by the link I supplied, but I guess you missed that. Not unless I'm wrong and there was some breakthrough in DNA where they have specifically isolated the genes responsible for ADHD.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Which parts are wrong? Give me specific time slots and specifics.
The whole thing was wrong, there wasn't an ounce of it that proved eovlution. I could also see the students asking the wrong questions. For example about the flagellum, why didn't they ask how it is that gears and sprockets were able to evolve.




top topics



 
31
<< 416  417  418    420  421  422 >>

log in

join