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.
Yep. It’s called addiction. Have you seen the tobacco companies advertising that?
I'm sorry but that doesn't disprove the fact that some people are actually relying on them for such.
I would be confused if I were not so used to your conflicting posts.
I guess your confused, I know smoking is bad for you, some people still do it, and you don't wonder why?
I have seen a lot of tobacco advertisements and have yet to see one that points out that smoking is bad for you.
OMG I never said that smoking isn't bad for you, all I'm saying is that it has benefits.
I guess your confused, I know smoking is bad for you, some people still do it, and you don't wonder why?
Especially when you are proven wrong. You offer no comment on the first link why? Is it because it confirms all I have wrote and proves you wrong? Are you allergic to the truth?
And that is someones opinion which I could care less about .
Google is a search engine. It returns hits based on the words you use. It does a good job but it is up to the user to use his intelligence to discern true from fake. You seem to be lacking in this ability.
Well that supposed lie is how I found the sites to begin with. I googled eco balanced tank.
Explain that one.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
[more
Google is a search engine. It returns hits based on the words you use. It does a good job but it is up to the user to use his intelligence to discern true from fake. You seem to be lacking in this ability.
I can explain it seeing as though you asked. You see only what you want to see.
You need to step away from that booze and those fags and stay away from any sharp objects until you have fully recovered
Shame I wasnt tooths dad.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
You need to step away from that booze and those fags and stay away from any sharp objects until you have fully recovered
Shame I wasnt tooths dad.
At least I'm smart enough to look for one.
You would not recognise the truth even if it came with a label attached.
Colin it doesn't matter if you belive that new life is created through a random process called evolution. The end result is the same, new life is made, and I for one believe that if this is how it actually happens, it appears that there is intelligence behind that process, thats all.
(accomplish not acomlish) Just saying evolution creates new life shows you know nothing and are determined to stay that way. Why do you continue to post here?
Oh I'm sorry forgive me...
The people on this thread are trying to convince me that evolution can perform the following...
Create new species.
Cause adaptations.
Cause speciation.
Cause natural selection.
Cause sexuall selection.
Alter our DNA without us knowing.
Cause mutations.
If you cannot truly reply to why you have misrepresented this group with the lies above then why do you continue to post here?
What proof do you have there isn't a god behind the creation of the steps of evolution?
Not only is that sentence very poorly constructed all you are doing is denying your denial.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021
In case I didn't reply, ADHD is causing duplicate, and missing DNA in humans.
ADHD does not change your DNA. The change is already there.
It has to they aren't saying anything about a pre-existing condition that would explain it allready being in the genes.
You just cannot read. Have you been checked out for dyslexia? The quote you supplied does not say ADHD changes DNA. It says some of the individuals, children with ADHD have a much higher rate of chunks of DNA that are either duplicated or missing. That in no way say's ADHD changed the DNA.
Of course, but the benefits of smoking could be addictive traits.
Yep. It’s called addiction. Have you seen the tobacco companies advertising that?
Your saying its a crappy balance globe, I'm saying its a balanced globe, its still a balanced globe.
So to put it back in context. You maintain the sealed globe is a balanced eco system because that is what the manufacturers tell you.
You don't know that.! How do you not know that the shrimp is exposed to other factors in the wild that actually extends its life, but normally is only suppose to live 18 months.
You confirm this by saying the tobacco adverts never say smoking is bad for you but then claim you never said it is not bad for you but claim it has benefits. Just like you claim the globe to be a balanced eco system that kills the shrimp 18 years prematurely.
No becaue someones opinion doesn't prove me wrong.
Especially when you are proven wrong. You offer no comment on the first link why? Is it because it confirms all I have wrote and proves you wrong? Are you allergic to the truth?
Whats wrong with only seeing what you want to see? After all that is how a search works isn't it?
Google is a search engine. It returns hits based on the words you use. It does a good job but it is up to the user to use his intelligence to discern true from fake. You seem to be lacking in this ability.
I can explain it seeing as though you asked. You see only what you want to see.
Only problem is if I'm so gulible, how is it I'm not buying the evolutionism theory?
Many years ago, when my children first starte dusin g the web for research for home work. I made a point of showing them a web site.
This web site ( i hope it was tongue in cheek) looked all above board an scientific, and demonstrated how planes fly. It showed that planes only stay in the air because everybody believed they could fly.
I showed my kids this because i wanted them to realise that anybody can build a website, and they had to look at more than one reference to form an opinion.
I also showed them the difference between information from an informed source and an uniformed source. i.e. if you want to know bout the universe, brian cox's opinion holds far mor weight than than brian hunters ( Brian Hunter---nice lad, works in our local chippy)
Shame I wasnt tooths dad
You mean your answers fail to surface, I never got to see them. That would be nice.
But I tend to stick to one that is more accurate...
1. Existing in or caused by nature
1. Existing in or caused by nature
Which is fine, but the only problem is that man is not considered to be a part of nature. Now you can check this online and see its highly debated, but honestly you have to at least ask yourself why it would even be considered if we had evolved. It's because one definition goes along the belief of evolution while others don't.
Well no its just that I don't just take anyones word for things without proof.
I never said that volcanos weren't natural, but thats evolutionisim for you putting words in others mouthes.
I'm going to retract that because its very complicated.
LIfe can exist provided there is other food to eat and that food can sustain that life. As is in our case. The problem is that it gets technical based on how much a species is going to be able to deal with it, and how many other similuar things there are to take its place.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
Only problem is if I'm so gulible, how is it I'm not buying the evolutionism theory?
Many years ago, when my children first starte dusin g the web for research for home work. I made a point of showing them a web site.
This web site ( i hope it was tongue in cheek) looked all above board an scientific, and demonstrated how planes fly. It showed that planes only stay in the air because everybody believed they could fly.
I showed my kids this because i wanted them to realise that anybody can build a website, and they had to look at more than one reference to form an opinion.
I also showed them the difference between information from an informed source and an uniformed source. i.e. if you want to know bout the universe, brian cox's opinion holds far mor weight than than brian hunters ( Brian Hunter---nice lad, works in our local chippy)
Shame I wasnt tooths dad
Tooth how many times do you need telling? Evolution does not describe the creation of new life and news for you. It is YOU that believes it does, not me.
Colin it doesn't matter if you belive that new life is created through a random process called evolution.
Look I know you have no idea about what evolution describes, there is no need to add further proof of your ignorance. Enough already.
The end result is the same, new life is made, and I for one believe that if this is how it actually happens, it appears that there is intelligence behind that process, thats all.
Evolution describes how life evolves not how new life is created. Jeezus mate, 450 pages and you show that massive degree of ignorance. If it was an Olympic event you would get gold. Here you get
Evolution makes new life, and there is no way to avoid that fact if you believe in evolution.
About time. There is a huge difference you know.
Oh I'm sorry forgive me...
Evolve new species, evolve through adaptations, speciate, evolve though natural selection, evovle though sexual selection, mutate and be able to do this all through our DNA without us being able to detect, or trace it.
I am surprised you noticed given how blind you are to the world around you.
No matter how you slice it, its the hoakiest crap I have every heard of. The more I realize whats going on the more I'm amazed at how blind people can be.
Nope. Evolution explains the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.
Evolution is clearly just a process to replace religion.
Yeah, right. You are the most religious fundamentalist I have ever witnessed.
I didn't see it at first because I'm not religious.
Err, how about evolution Not much of a dilemma there.
Not that the creation theory is correct but I have an eye opening dilema for you. How else can you explain all of the intelligence that must be behind how all of this works.
Any proof? Evidence? Supporting argument? Links? Nope just your opinion. That is worthless.
Things don't just work because they work, there was serious thought put into making them work.
Yeah, you’re not saying your religious either, you're just saying right
Granted all we might see is a few tid bits here and there, but it's looking more and more like there is something much bigger behind it all. I'm not saying god, I'm just saying.
For a guy that is not religious you talk about god a hell of a lot. If you are talking about how life started on this planet who knows. Make up any story you like.
What proof do you have there isn't a god behind the creation of the steps of evolution?
You need to read your own links.
It has to they aren't saying anything about a pre-existing condition that would explain it allready being in the genes.
Is that of course its addiction or of course you have seen tobacco companies advertising it as a selling point? As for the benefits? Get a life man.
Of course, but the benefits of smoking could be addictive traits.
Right that is your opinion. Now address the argument I put forward and the evidence, links and quotes from those links.
Your saying its a crappy balance globe, I'm saying its a balanced globe, its still a balanced globe.
Read the links I supplied you. That’s how I know. You ignoring them is why you don’t know.
You don't know that.! How do you not know that the shrimp is exposed to other factors in the wild that actually extends its life, but normally is only suppose to live 18 months.
When I supply supporting evidence, links and quotes from those links it ceases to be my opinion. You are meant to consider what I supplied and form a reasoned response based on my argument and or produce evidence that supports yours.
No becaue someones opinion doesn't prove me wrong.
The fact you ask that question shows you in a very poor light.
Whats wrong with only seeing what you want to see? After all that is how a search works isn't it?
Well if I sound like I skipped over, I probably didn't but found it to be not worthy of producing relationships between species and human.
My example was in the first post, but you missed it somehow. So I copied it into next reply. And you missed it somehow. It included a link to the book I had gotten the example from so that you could read it and perhaps learn something, but you missed it somehow. You could actually read the things I post. That would be nice.
I don't know about that, our presence on this planet is nothing but trouble.
I was making a point about ancient extinctions. Man has nothing to do with them. This doesn't address the subject on hand at all.
I prefer to call it a crap filter, there is a lot of that on forums.
Accumulated knowledge of human science and understanding? Insufficient! Your own completely unsupported imaginings? Good enough!
Because its very possible that the time line, and what was causing the volcanos was wrong.
So if volcanoes are natural, and they were causing massive extinctions millions of years before the dinasaurs were here, much less people, how can you say extinction is unnatural?
It's only wrong if there is other food for species to scavange off of, and that is NOT predictable.
No, you are retracting it because its flat out wrong and you can't defend it. That's why your next sentence is the exact opposite of it:
Some will, some are not smart enough to look on, some aren't able to find anything they are willing to eat so they die.
So species will survive as long as they can find any food that will sustain them, and if they can't they go extinct? Isn't that exactly how the world works, and has always worked? And no need for target food at all. Fascinating