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: 492
31
<< 489  490  491    493  494  495 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Herein lies tooth's complete logic concerning evolution and therefore the root of the problem:



itsthetooth:
As an example, lets pretend I'm a creator, and I'm creating wing nuts, lets say YOUR a wing nut. In order for you to have some direction on what your supposed to eat, I would have to first have a prior knowledge of the food that I'm going to direct you to. I would also have to know that food is available, and that you will have access to it.




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





For ants to farm. Your lazy outlook on life does not prove anything more than that.
Just because humans have to take more steps to do what other species are already equipped to do, does not mean that I'm being lazy. The fact is you can eat your way through 10 miles of crap if you just have to know what the source is, it doesn't mean that going the distance is healthy. Anytime we have to adapt, or work around a problem, or prepare ourselfs for a task, its just proof that its not something that we naturally do. Now don't confuse that with us not being able to do it, we can do just about anything, but there is a cost for that, you end up with a reduction of life.




I did just compare them above. What on earth are you on about existing quarters? You claimed you had read up on ants. I supplied a link you claimed you skimmed through. The ants farm the aphids on the plants near not in the nest. The ants move the aphids to other parts of the plant and to other plants as needed. So your sign of natural does not even exist. That makes you demonstrably WRONG
Obviously, I thought they brought them back to their quarters.




I have proven your opinion wrong. I take it you are not going to show any evidence for your failed argument and so you lose the whole argument.
The ony thing you have tried to do is prove simularity between us and ants. But the fact is their actions are natural, and ours are not. Milking cows for profit, is not natural, there are no natural ties we bare to prove that. Building farms to house the animals is also not natural, there are no natural ties or abilitys we posses that prove that, so you are obviously wrong.




Oh come on, I was the one that had to teach you that evolution is obviously a creator.

Really despite me telling you many times evolution does not describe creation. You really are the ultimate in ignorance and dishonesty. Why do you post here?
Are you really going to make yourself look that foolish in front of others? Something that has created over a billion species couldn't possibly be a creator? Your just a slow learner.





So as you can see, a creator can be a thing, like evolution, it doesn't have to be god as you know it, or it can also be a replacement for god wihich is the other part, that I believe you are also using.

All I see is a person who cannot even read his own definition and evolution is not a thing, it is a word
Well its a process and I was referring to the process as being a thing.




Evolution shows how an organism evolves. A new species evolves after so much change has occurred over time that it can no longer breed with the originator and that is supposing the originator still exists. NOTHING was created you just do not have the education to understand that. You have made that abundantly clear.
Either way, the end result is over a billion species rendered. Now thats the epitome of a creator.




Love a duck. 500 pages and you come out with that nonsense.

The environment selects for advantage. Not everything in the environment is selected. Jeezus H.

We have a group of slugs. The diversity within the slugs means some do better in the heat than others. For some reason their environment gets warmer. Those at the lower end of temperature tolerance scale suffer greatly and die. Those mid range don’t do so well and thus a lower % live long enough to breed. Those with a higher tolerance to heat are not affected and breed much more often in the group. Their genes become the dominant genes within the group. ADVANTAGE SELECTED FOR BY THE ENVIRONMENT.
Its still a far cry from explaining how we evolved from slime, or from apes.




There has to be thought, in this transaction, and there has to be intelligence that has prior knowledge of the menu.

I just explained to you yet again the only intelligence needed is that of you understanding what has been spoon fed you. I know that will not happen
I noticed this is your common reply to what I mentioned, it must mean that you simply don't have an answer, just like I expected. There is simply no way evolution would be able to allow, share, force, instill the knowledge of a diet unto a species without first knowing the diet exists. There is obviously knowledge shared somewhere.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Now since you were having such a problem with the understanding of the term "instinct" I thought it would be wise to share something that should really hit home about this subject.

Instinct is not something that we work around, or something that we devise to work around. Instinct requires no thought as it is instilled in us in a prior time. Instinct requires not teaching, it requires not help and best of all no quidence, and especially no tools.

Now let me share with you something that also proves we are not from here. an instinct that has no place on earth, at least not anything definable to earth.

When a person is low on iron, they have the natural instinct to chew on ice cubes. Sometimes this iron deficiency can be so bad that it causes the person to appear to have a horrible habbit of always chewing on ice. Now I even worked next to a girl that dealt with this so bad that she was actually wearing her teeth down from all the ice that she chews.

Now I have heard both from people as well as doctors directly that its a sign that the person is low in iron. Whats very interesting is that this must have been something that doctors did some research on because there is no corrolation between ice/ water, and iron. Still here we are, and people have this natural instinct to chew on ice like mad when their iron is low.

We have nothing that resembles the state of ice that would please us in the iron department, so the mystery deepens. Why do we feel the urg to chomp on ice when our iron is low?

Whats happening is we are craving a natural supplement that we would normally have, but obviously don't have since we have been here on earth, that would accomodate us in the iron zone. Its a clue about something that we would normally have access to but now we don't. Just like how we are unable to hit our calcium levels without supplements, there is also a missing supplement for iron.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Come on man, if all species eat the same food, someone or something is guiding them to do so.

Show your evidence not your ignorance.

What I mean to say is that all species have an identifiable diet.
Nope what you were meant to do was provide evidence you failed.


I just posted proof on my thread of random diets right off google. Every single one of them discloses a diet from about 10 different random species I picked.
So what do you want me to do, call you a good boy? I asked the question above on this thread. You have again refused to provide anything more than your opinion. You lost that one then.


If its evolution, then evolution is backed with intelligence because there is no way it could evolve a species and inform it of what it should at, without first knowing that the food is even available.

Again you have had this evidence spoon fed to you so often it must be your target food. Show your evidence not your ignorance

If you still believe that evolution is to blame for this, then I ask in all seriousness how it is able to share a knowledgable diet with a newly made species?
Evolution is not to blame for anything. IT IS A WORD. Guess what I asked you to show your evidence not your ignorance. You failed. You lost this one as well


It's totally backed with some type of intelligence.
It is only backed by your opinion and that is no intelligence at all.


Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life? So what are you saying, evolution is NOT responsible for the diversity of life? I see your finaly learning.
No what I am saying and have always told you even above. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. It is also not responsible for diversity because it is a word. You also know nothing about learning.

So all the points above have not be supplied with evidence from you. You have lost all those points.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
That's at least 3 posts I just past through from you where you offer nothing but you ignorance, dishonesty and unintelligent opinion

You were warned You have lost every point so far. so I will quote from a wise person here


Species don't know what to eat. They eat what they can catch. If it tastes good and gives them energy they will eat it again. They aren't as smart as humans, but probably are smarter than you.
That answer says it all. Job done



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Nope what you were meant to do was provide evidence you failed.
Species all eating the same food is proof enough. It proves intelligence was involved in their diet set up.




So what do you want me to do, call you a good boy? I asked the question above on this thread. You have again refused to provide anything more than your opinion. You lost that one then.
I posted proof that species have fixed diets, which proves inteligence was behind that structure.




No what I am saying and have always told you even above. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. It is also not responsible for diversity because it is a word. You also know nothing about learning.

So all the points above have not be supplied with evidence from you. You have lost all those points.
Nope your excuse is that evolution did it, with no argument on how thats possible. Even though I clearly pointed out many times that it can only happen through intelligence, even if evolution did do it. Your not dismissed, your dissed.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Species don't know what to eat. They eat what they can catch. If it tastes good and gives them energy they will eat it again. They aren't as smart as humans, but probably are smarter than you.

That answer says it all. Job done
So in other words each individual thats part of a species will figure out what to eat through trial and error, and they just so happen to all arive on agreeing on the same things. Right, now thats fake as hell.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I'll answer your posts as a job lot again. You offer nothing new. Your failed term target food has been proved wrong on your own thread so dont bring it here. You lost the argument already there.

Your posts have been rejected, NO EVIDENCE




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I'll answer your posts as a job lot again. You offer nothing new. Your failed term target food has been proved wrong on your own thread so dont bring it here. You lost the argument already there.


Your posts have been rejected, NO EVIDENCE


Ya right, just because you say so right? LOL.


Your going to have to find a new topic to destroy colin as you failed at defending this one. The sad part is I didn't have to spend months delving into the details of evolution to determine it was a sham, a little slow are you? Species don't change colin, DNA doesnt change, and if you honeslty believe it does you need to notify all of the DNA labs in the world quick because we use that sensitive information to identify killers and for paternity cases as well. LOL DNA that changes for no apparent reason
.

Your new religion is just a cover up of the old religion, and I can see how bitter you get when others don't believe in it, its so typicall of any religion, the attituide that is.

We have no relation with apes, or any other species for that matter, for all you know those close definitions in DNA could have been from a creator recycling old species, and growing on his creation. There is clear documentation that tells us we were placed here, thats probably where you lost this argument all together. You on the other hand have nothing in the realm of documentation. You have nothing from prior ancestors, and nothing from prior species, zilch, its as though just one day, BAM we grew a brain and decided to start documenting things. Your never going to conivnce me that all of a sudden we grew a need for documenting. With the way our species mind works, we stive ourselves on learning from the past, but not before the bible, isn't that a little odd? Or is it perhaps because we weren't here yet?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
One desert island
One cow
Itsthetooth

Does Tooth suck on the cow's teet to survive or does he stick to his convictions and perish?

5 to 1 on teet sucking.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
One desert island
One cow
Itsthetooth

Does Tooth suck on the cow's teet to survive or does he stick to his convictions and perish?

5 to 1 on teet sucking.
One desert island, one cow, tooth.

I say poor cow. It would have no one to have an intelligent conversation with.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


The thirst for the Infinite proves infinity.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


If you honeslty believe that cows milk was supposed to be our source of calcium, then you also would have to believe that each person is supposed to own their own cow, as the mass processes are not natural.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


Silly? So its silly to drink a cats milk but not a cows milk right?


Obviously this man has never tried to milk a cat! SCRATCHES



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 





evolution was created by the same thing that created everything else. look at it like a seed when the conditions are right it turns into something else sometime the seeds are bad and they dont change, or can't change resulting in extinction its survival of the fittest the world is always changing and so does all the species who occupie it so evolution is correct in a certian sence but its better off called adaption.

i dont want to believe i evolved from a monkey i want to believe i evolved from a T-rex
Well that is actually the claim that evolution makes about adaptation, in that it is part of evolution, but it's not.

Evolution means changes on a molecular level, adaptation is an ability like eye sight or hearing. The fact is they have nothing to do with each other. Adaptation is the only reason we have managed to exist on this planet, which only means that we failed to evolve.

DO NOT take any lessons from this person on evolution....this person DOES NOT understand ANy evolutionary processes at all.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


If you honeslty believe that cows milk was supposed to be our source of calcium, then you also would have to believe that each person is supposed to own their own cow, as the mass processes are not natural.
Dear god do you ever stop?

Go rant about milk somewhere else. Your argument has been destroyed so often it has become mouldy old cheese.

You do not want to debate diversity without referring to evolution so go away to somewhere that wants to talk endlessly about milk.

BTW you have not started your thread about how it is unnatural to bake bread. Do that



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





So according to you ants are not natural

Proves my point that both ants and humans farm both crops and livestock so those actions are both either Natural on not Natural. Which is it?
Humans were not specifically designed with the idea of farming, unlike the ants, they have the ability because they were designed for that.

There is nothing about us aside from our mind, that gives us the ability to farm animals. The fact that we do it is just another form of adaptation, We either farm or we die, and this is a fact. Just because we were placed into this situation and as a result have to play ball, does not mean its what was meant for us.


And you do of course have proof of the statements made above?

The only document you recognize as historical is the bible and that refers to humans farming and hunting throughout.

So....proof please that farming has never been an instinctive part of human behavior!



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I see, so in other words as far as your concearned, its just a giant coincidence that species always eat the same food.

I guess the fact that the anteater has specieal ears to hear the ants through the ground is just another coincidence, and fact that he has a special snout for being able to smell the ants is just yet another coincidence, and the fact that he has perfect claws for tearing up ant hills, is just yet another coincidence, and the fact that he has a special sticky tounge for reaching into far holes to grab ants, is all just another coincidence.
.


The fact that he can only spend a few minutes at each nest as he can not put up with the bites and stings.
The fact that he has to visit in up to 200 nests daily in order to meet his calorific intake.

200 a day, lets give him 1.5 minutes at each before he has to run away =300minutes....wow 5hours a day just eating....then there's the time spent searching for the nests, lets be generous and give him an average of 5mins between nests, that's a further 1000minutes.

Seems to me Mr Anteater spends nearly all his waking hours searching for, and eating insects.

Doesnt sound very efficient to me.......

Bad Design....Bad Designer...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Are white sharks from planet earth?

If your answer is yes, as made obvious from the fossil record, then why do they feed on seals in many cases as their primary food? Sharks were never meant to eat land animals! Seals didn't exist as long as sharks, so clearly sharks must not be from planet earth, since they have no target food. Are you telling me seals were INTENDED to be eaten by sharks? Megaladon was brought here in a marine spaceship 260 million years ago. The whole target food / milk debate is nonsense. Milk is natural. Humans drink it because it's a good source of calcium, just like white sharks feed on fatty seals because they can give them enough energy for weeks. Simple. You should watch shark week and see how cool these creatures really are and how silly your concept of target food is. Nature is a constant battle for survival. Nothing is ever intended easy food as you suggest.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Obviously this man has never tried to milk a cat! SCRATCHES
Cows milk was made for calves, cats milk was made for kittens, deers milk was made for fawns, human breast milk was made for babys.

Dont get me wrong, its the best source of calcium we have, cows milk, so you better accept it as though its your own, you need it. Our source is obviously not here.




top topics



 
31
<< 489  490  491    493  494  495 >>

log in

join