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: 55
31
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I don't understand you guys, this is IMO proof in writing, while you guys are digging up fossils trying to put a puzzle together that wont fit. One of my favorite arguments on here is how the other guy only wanted to accept information from books.

However he was quick to exclude the bible, sitchen, von daniken, and pye, all which offer books.


'Proof of writing'. You have come out with some interesting comments. This is one of your best.

How else in this format can a discussion take place other than in writing? Others here waste time explaining and providing links you obiviously do not read or address and dont intend to.

Unfortunately for you the puzzle fits and does not need ET to fill the gaps.

If these slaving aliens can travel the universe, design and make slave races and they use them to mine gold?

You dont question why? You dont wonder why they designed us to be aggresive if all they needed was gold diggers.

You dont ask why, if so tech advanced they could not come up with a better way of getting gold?

It seems you dont even look to see why only Sitchin believes he has translated the info correctly.

Finally it seems you too rely on the 'Proof of writing' but choose to only referance books that are supported by no evidance at all. Come on, the truth is you just do not like the thought your/our distant cousin is an ape.

You dont like that you are not special alone as Evolution shows all life is special.




posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

we also share sea sponge dna but they are also a different species than us just like the Neanderthals. We didn't come from them, we share ancient ancestors and if you follow Intervention Theory it makes sense because our dna comes from an artificial blending with an earlier species. Just as the Sumerian record shows.



Bwaahhaaa
Seriously. Moving on. No serious scientific debate is going to come out of you obviously.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by iterationzero
 


There's more scientists called "Steve" (not Steven, Stephen, Stephan, etc....just "Steve") than there are scientists not believing in evolution. Yet some fools still pretend it's up for debate. Our education system must really be failing...

LINK

And the sad part is, the only Western country where people believe less in the theory than in the US is Turkey because of fundamentalist Islam.



Steve's a very common name but on another note what you've said about the U.S is arguably true.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

we also share sea sponge dna but they are also a different species than us just like the Neanderthals. We didn't come from them, we share ancient ancestors and if you follow Intervention Theory it makes sense because our dna comes from an artificial blending with an earlier species. Just as the Sumerian record shows.



Bwaahhaaa
Seriously. Moving on. No serious scientific debate is going to come out of you obviously.


There can never be "serious scientific debate" over this subject because once it's accepted as truth it turns "science" on its head. You guys aren't the type who likes to rewrite everything they've wasted their lives on.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
There can never be "serious scientific debate" over this subject because once it's accepted as truth it turns "science" on its head. You guys aren't the type who likes to rewrite everything they've wasted their lives on.


You're always welcome to challenge science. You simply must bring proof to the table. Doubt is not proof, though if you can prove a reasonable doubt in the non-existence of a process which we have been using to predict the behavior of mutations in bacteria, then please, go right ahead. The scientific community would be forever grateful to you for proving that they are wrong. I mean, at the moment I'm studying the history of an entire scientific discipline, and people challenge it all the time, sometimes harshly.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
evolution is based on memory biases
so in a sense its not wrong



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
There can never be "serious scientific debate" over this subject because once it's accepted as truth it turns "science" on its head. You guys aren't the type who likes to rewrite everything they've wasted their lives on.


You're always welcome to challenge science. You simply must bring proof to the table. Doubt is not proof, though if you can prove a reasonable doubt in the non-existence of a process which we have been using to predict the behavior of mutations in bacteria, then please, go right ahead. The scientific community would be forever grateful to you for proving that they are wrong. I mean, at the moment I'm studying the history of an entire scientific discipline, and people challenge it all the time, sometimes harshly.


Translating ancient clay tablets falls into the realm of linguistics so we're talking apples and oranges.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight! - www.chessquotes.com...


Text....I go over many games collections and pick up something from the style of each player.

I have always thought it a matter of honour for every chess player to deserve the smile of fortune.

Of course, errors are not good for a chess game, but errors are unavoidable and in any case, a game without ant errors, or as they say 'flawless game' is colorless.


The cherished dream of every chessplayer is to play a match with the World Champion. But here is the paradox: the closer you come to the realization of this goal, the less you think about it.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Translating ancient clay tablets falls into the realm of linguistics so we're talking apples and oranges.


No, not apples and oranges. I'm under the understanding that you reject the theory of evolution. You apparently think that some Sumerian tablets have absolute proof, even though even if they talked about aliens, it could have been their form of science fiction for all we know. We can't accept anything written down as proof. We have to observe the world around us and draw our conclusions based on the most likely possibility. Remember that in the time of the Sumerians, people were just as anatomically modern as today, which means their mental faculties were the same, and that they were not all that different than us or more primitive in any way, aside from having different technology in their daily lives.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


There can never be "serious scientific debate" over this subject because

... because you're not willing or able to bring actual evidence to the table. All you have are the words of Sitchin, a debunked phony who was more interested in selling books than actually searching for truth.


once it's accepted as truth it turns "science" on its head.

Once what is accepted as truth? The baseless speculation you're bringing to the discussion? Don't get me wrong, speculation is fun, especially when you want to see how far you can push the bounds of logic. But it's not a substitute for evidence.


You guys aren't the type who likes to rewrite everything they've wasted their lives on.

Wasted how, exactly? We observe evolution. We make predictions (accurate ones at that) based on evolution. We product new technologies based on evolution. How is that pursuit a waste?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm replying cause it wont fit...
Not at all, I know the gold was needed to save the athmosphere of another planet. All definitions I'm looking up about evolution are inconclusive, just like aliens.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm replying cause it wont fit...
Not at all, I know the gold was needed to save the athmosphere of another planet. All definitions I'm looking up about evolution are inconclusive, just like aliens.


I think you mistake "knowing" for "believing"


Gold to save an athmosphere



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Gold to save an athmosphere


I think your laughter is more of the nervous type than genuine hilarity. Ever heard of cloud seeding or particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere? It's interesting to note such an ancient civilization even knowing that it is possible let alone necessary to protect an atmosphere in some way. I'm sure one of you will claim "coincidence, just making stuff up. It's things like this that point out exactly the flaws in the main stream scientific community's unwillingness/inability to go out of their box.... or should I say coffin?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


How about you finally start presenting some facts instead of repeating nonsense you get from pseudo-scientific websites? Gold has nothing to do with cloud seeding or weather control...go ask China if you don't believe me


LINK

It baffles me that post after post you make gets refuted, yet you blindly continue believing in stuff that is A) unproven or B) demonstrably wrong. And all the while you ignore proven facts and theories


Real life isn't Harry Potter



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

I'm replying cause it wont fit...
Not at all, I know the gold was needed to save the atmosphere of another planet. All definitions I'm looking up about evolution are inconclusive, just like aliens.


Why won't you answer any of my questions about your theory or even attempt to learn about something? You just ignore every single fact that contradicts your theory and change the subject or repeat your original debunked points. You won't even expand on anything. At least Bottlingsguy is willing to debate and discuss, even though I feel he's going about it the wrong way, at least he's trying. You just ignore everything and respond with generic one liners that have nothing to do with anything. If you aren't even going to try, don't bother posting in this thread. You can't prove evolution wrong or come up with an alternative theory backed by facts. It's not possible. Again, please offer up your explanation of the various races of human if evolution is false. Stop dodging questions. Every question you asked about evolution has been thoroughly answered. Please at least show us the same curtsey with your theory. I'm curious about it as well.

Bottlingsguy, I do personally feel that aliens visited us in the past and might have indeed messed with DNA. Unfortunately its far from proven at this point. If it's true, it doesn't mean evolution is false, however, it means that it was manipulated at that point in our development. I think that you are discrediting yourself by claiming as such. Don't fall into that trap that makes many of the ancient alien theorists look bad. Work WITH the facts, don't try to change them. Go with what we know and work your way forward, don't assume.

God
Evolution
Aliens visiting earth in the past

All 3 could be true are certainly not mutually exclusive, especially the middle one since it's based on scientific facts.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm replying cause it wont fit...
Not at all, I know the gold was needed to save the athmosphere of another planet. All definitions I'm looking up about evolution are inconclusive, just like aliens.


It appears to me that you are guilty of what you and others wrongly accuse science of.

You read a book that in this case has nothing credible to back it up and then refuse to look at any other explanations for fear of spoiling your beliefs.

This is the exact opposite of the way science works where evidence is presented precisely to be challenged and tested.

As for using gold to protect the alien atmosphere it makes no sense at all when cheaper alluminium mirrors could most likely do the same job the book you refer to describes.

Why if this planet they live on cannot naturally support them did they not just move to this planet?

If I I recall correctly Sitchen says they would not live as long here. So these giants of science who can genetically build miners cannot resolve that little problem. If how you describe them was true it is another unanswered question.

Given that mining all this gold would have taken time, otherwise why build a new race for a short period. How long do you think it would take an inteligent species like us to be able to describe a vehicle used by these 'Gods' in a better way than a flying chariot. We are very good at naming things why did we fail miserably in this case?

If we knew that they would die early if they lived here permanent that means they would not have been considered Gods. Why are they always described so?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


The real question Sitchin never asked (because that wouldn't sell his book) is:

Why on earth would aliens go through all this trouble, when the estimated amount of gold in the universe is 66 trillion times of the mass of our sun??? That's the mass of around 219 galaxies according to the University of California.

It might not be as abundant as hydrogen, but it's not as if earth is the universe's Fort Knox.

Are some guys posting here seriously telling me that those aliens had the technology to fly lightyears through space, yet completely fail at using technology to mine gold at one of the trillions of places? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???


Here's the paper about gold in the universe if for those who care about facts: LINK

I can't believe Sitchin is selling books to people who fall for that crap. Use your brains for crying out loud, do some research, but for PLEASE stop wasting everyone's time with pseudo-science nonsense until you have objective evidence to back it up.
edit on 7-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Are you talking to me? I know your not talking to me. LOL

To be fair Sitchin is not selling any books lately. RIP

I read a couple of his works and they were very entertaining but it did not and should not be hard to realise the wide open holes. Things that are stated as fact that do not fit reality at all. Star wars is more credible.

Admittedly I have not read all of his works so in the spirit of the thread the invite to pose the evidence and its explanation of the diverity we see is open. I very much doubt any real attempt will be made to show any evidence at all.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Are you talking to me? I know your not talking to me. LOL

To be fair Sitchin is not selling any books lately. RIP

I read a couple of his works and they were very entertaining but it did not and should not be hard to realise the wide open holes. Things that are stated as fact that do not fit reality at all. Star wars is more credible.

Admittedly I have not read all of his works so in the spirit of the thread the invite to pose the evidence and its explanation of the diverity we see is open. I very much doubt any real attempt will be made to show any evidence at all.


Hehehe, wasn't directed at you, sry


And yeah, I doubt you'll get your evidence...



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm replying cause it wont fit...
Not at all, I know the gold was needed to save the athmosphere of another planet. All definitions I'm looking up about evolution are inconclusive, just like aliens.


I think you mistake "knowing" for "believing"


Gold to save an athmosphere


apparently I'm not the only one. Everything you are questioning claiming to be pseudo science is from NON FICTION authors, and you call them fiction. I dunno man.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join