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: 57
31
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

My god doesn't believe in punishment




posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I'll guarantee the people who claim to have debunked Sitchin either never read anything he's written or have read the material and are now in some existentialistic panic because their whole conceptual framework is a joke, so they do everything in their power to discredit him.

It's not exactly difficult to debunk Sitchin, so your claim that it requires everything in someone's power to do so is a little overstated.


They even slander him posthumously.

What you're talking about here is libel, not slander. Further, a concerned party would have an extremely difficult time proving that libelous statements were made given that Sitchins translations are demonstrably wrong.

It's a shame that the arguments provided by you and itsthetooth have essentially devolved (pun intended) into, "You can't handle the truth!" Most of the other recent posters in this thread have shown enough respect to provide examples of objective evidence to support their case. It's a shame you've been unwilling to do the same.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
They did have machinery in the mines, if you read any of Sitchin's work you'd know that. You also fall into this anthropomorphic haze of delusions when you try to correlate their ways of life with ours today as if we are some top feeder in the web of life and there is some baseline of advanced science that you have to approve of. Why would you even entertain the thought they were anything like us today? You're too brainwashed by hollywood to get the full picture.

Explain to me how stories from Genesis are found in Clay tablets from five thousand years earlier? Whether you accept them as true or not doesn't matter right now. Explain how this information got passed on.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

see you don't get it. This is not a game of chess or a chemistry experiment. Science is at a wall right now. Where can it go from here? Physics is at the point (well it has been for a while now) where it can't really explain a lot of the things that are happening in reality with the OBJECTIVE PROOF seal of approval. So its got to jump off the page at some point and the resistance is about as annoying as the moron who can't decide whether or not to jump in the pool because it might be cold. Bottom line the people controlling it (ie paying the bills) are only sharing a sample with everyday you and me.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I got to you with that "wasted life" thing didn't I?

You should be less concerned with playing "gotcha" games and more concerned with actually being engaged in the discussion. People have been providing you with examples of objective evidence in good faith. You proceed to ignore that evidence and engage in character attacks.


IZ the evidence is all around you.

Agreed. And all of the evidence gathered at this point supports the theory of evolution.


I'm not the one with rational myopathy.

I think you mean myopia, but that's OK.


Wasted because it hasn't helped bring the human condition to any better state than we were in during the dark ages.

So your rejection of the theory of evolution stems from your dissatisfaction with your current standard of living?


We might be a little cleaner hygienically but even that is most likely causing us more harm than good.

I'll agree that, as a society, we're overdependent and even a little obsessed with antibiotics and antibacterial products. Myself, I tend to shy away from them as unnecessary. On the other hand, immunization programs have clear value and, when used properly, antibiotics save lives.


Why hasn't science led to more peace and prosperity for people globally?

Is it up to science to dictate social policy?


You'll blame it on the people wielding the political power who use the most cutting edge science and if you do you'll be making my point for me.

I will blame it on the politicians, especially in the United States, but I think you have it exactly backwards. They're not wielding cutting edge science -- they seem completely opposed to any kind of real scientific advancement because, in their mind, much of science conflicts with their overly-literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.


Science is only as good as the people who control it.

The same can be said of any tool.


Science as a pursuit of knowledge is fine but surely you're not proud of the feeble accomplishments from the last hundred years or so are you?

Why shouldn't be proud of our accomplishments? For example, why shouldn't we be proud of sequencing the entire human genome (and moving on to other species), which in turn gives us the ability to better understand the source of a wide variety of genetic disorders and fight them? That accomplishment isn't the end of a line of scientific inquiry, it's the beginning of one. Hell, it's the beginning of hundreds or thousands of new lines of inquiry. "Proud" doesn't mean "satisfied" or "sedentary".


What if Tesla's work wasn't confiscated and hoarded by the American govt? Or squelched and stolen by greedy bastards like Edison and Westinghaus?

Agreed, the marginalization of Tesla is one of the great scientific crimes of the 20th century. Unfortunately, we can only speculate what life would have been like if he hadn't been.


You can't tell me (well you can but if you do you are pretty dumb) that science has hit a brick wall and can't give us better than what we got. You shouldn't be so proud

I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that anyone thinks scientific advancement has come to a halt.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


This is not a game of chess or a chemistry experiment.

I agree, this is supposed to be a discussion forum, an a civil one at that. Yet you seem to be intent on going after the player and not the ball.


Science is at a wall right now.

How so? Based on what I'm seeing, scientific advancement is accelerating. Almost to a dangerous degree. In some cases, it's moving faster than our ability to understand the long term ramifications of its use.


Where can it go from here?

That's always the question, isn't it? And there's nothing wrong with starting out with speculation but, at some point, you're going to need to test those hypotheses and provide some kind of objective evidence if you want to move forward.


Physics is at the point (well it has been for a while now) where it can't really explain a lot of the things that are happening in reality with the OBJECTIVE PROOF seal of approval.

Which is why you see theoretical physics models getting overturned with greater rapidity than in other areas of science. Areas like chemistry. Or evolutionary biology, which is still going strong after a century and half. Not because scientific advancement has stopped or because it's a sacred cow that no one is allowed to attack, but because it's theory that's been repeatedly tested and scrutinized and has come out of that testing and scrutiny stronger each time.


So its got to jump off the page at some point and the resistance is about as annoying as the moron who can't decide whether or not to jump in the pool because it might be cold.

Resistance to what, exactly? Resistance to overturning a scientific theory with over a century and a half of objective evidence backing it up in favor of pure speculation? Seriously, if you want to reduce the resistance, feel free to move out of the realm of pure speculation and produce a series of testable hypotheses, go out and test them, and report back with your results.


Bottom line the people controlling it (ie paying the bills) are only sharing a sample with everyday you and me.

That's fine by me. I'm a researcher so, according to you, I'm part of the conspiracy.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

I'm talking science in general



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

Well it DOES work to your benefit and I would add you have a motive for bias against things outside the main stream cadre. Don't patronize me about how rapidly science is advancing. I don't doubt for one minute there are people who benefit very nicely about keeping the level of publicly available technology low. They throw out bones compared to the potential. I wouldn't consider anything that science develops that doesn't have to do with keeping the planet clean and making people healthier and happier to be anything worthy of scientific pursuit. Why is science so toxic and anti life? What good is science if all its byproducts are harmful?

The Annunaki seem like some pretty cool dudes all except for the making us fight over their silly feuds stuff. I'd like to get a little of that non-polluting zero-point energy technology and see where science can go. I don't get the reluctance.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

did the shoe fit with that post that was not directed to you?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Well it DOES work to your benefit and I would add you have a motive for bias against things outside the main stream cadre.

It has nothing to do with what's inside or outside the mainstream. My bias is in favor of things which have objective evidence supporting them.


Don't patronize me about how rapidly science is advancing.

I don't feel I was being patronizing, but I find it amusing that someone so willing to engage in personal attacks is sensitive to perceived instances of being patronized.


I don't doubt for one minute there are people who benefit very nicely about keeping the level of publicly available technology low. They throw out bones compared to the potential.

While I'd agree that there are cases of this happening, I'm not sure if I agree that the level of tech that's being hidden is as much of a quantum leap over what's publicly available as you seem to be implying.


I wouldn't consider anything that science develops that doesn't have to do with keeping the planet clean and making people healthier and happier to be anything worthy of scientific pursuit. Why is science so toxic and anti life?

It's all in the application. If you're looking for zero-impact technologies on an absolute scale, you're going to be disappointed with everything out there. There's always a price to be paid in some fashion.


What good is science if all its byproducts are harmful?

You ask this question while you use a machine rife with environmental pollutants, powered by electricity that most likely comes from a dirty source. You're complicit in all of the harm you're willing to attribute to science. You reap the benefits of everything science has provided for you and then turn around and denigrate it as being "toxic" and "anti life".


The Annunaki seem like some pretty cool dudes all except for the making us fight over their silly feuds stuff.

So does Gandalf, except for that bit about making the poor little Hobbitses walk all the way to Mordor instead of having one of his giant eagle buddies just fly them over Mount Doom.


I'd like to get a little of that non-polluting zero-point energy technology and see where science can go. I don't get the reluctance.

Do you really think that no theoretical physicist is doing research into zero-point energy?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

If you want to have a private conversation with another user, feel free to U2U them. Otherwise, you should be prepared for people to comment on your posts, whether the posts were directed at them or not.

And, again, you should refrain from the personal attacks. They don't add anything to the conversation at hand.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
It appears that there is some kind of mechanism going on within the various species but how one crosses over into the other is not clear. My bringing the Sumerians up has to do with my thoughts on where modern humans come from and why we so apparently don't fit in any niche ( it also answers the riddles posed by the global megalithic creations). The Sumerians talk about tampering with dna and just because they used names like "celestial abode" does not mean they were talking about illusions. I'll guarantee the people who claim to have debunked Sitchin either never read anything he's written or have read the material and are now in some existentialistic panic because their whole conceptual framework is a joke, so they do everything in their power to discredit him. They even slander him posthumously.


This is actually something that biological anthropology students have to learn to grasp during university courses. You see, species never really "cross over" into other species, essentially. They just adapt in different areas or in different breeding groups until their genetics have changed enough for them to no longer breed, then time and change slowly makes diversity and alterations. After enough time (millions and millions and millions of years. Remember, this is a lot of time), the species can appear entire different, from tiny things like lizards to human beings.

The key is that if you examine every species on Earth, you will find parallels all over the place. Hell, whales have a mammalian skeleton for crying out loud!

As you can see, there is a spine, arms with the forearm separated into two bones (just like us!), fingers on the hands, a rib cage, etc. I mean, this doesn't just happen randomly. Whales and humans also have a common ancestor, albeit much farther back than our connection with the chimps' ancestor.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

My god doesn't believe in punishment


I don't either, I never said I agree with the actions.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Not me, all the authors I refer to are listed as NON FICTION writers. So I'm not sure what your trying to get at when all I'm able to find on evolution is either in debate or inconclusive. I would seriously love to see anything about evolution that does not have the words in debate, inconclusive, unsure, etc....
edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: a



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





Why is science so toxic and anti life?


You mean apart from the fact that it was science who ensured humans now live longer than ever?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by iterationzero
 

Well it DOES work to your benefit and I would add you have a motive for bias against things outside the main stream cadre. Don't patronize me about how rapidly science is advancing. I don't doubt for one minute there are people who benefit very nicely about keeping the level of publicly available technology low. They throw out bones compared to the potential. I wouldn't consider anything that science develops that doesn't have to do with keeping the planet clean and making people healthier and happier to be anything worthy of scientific pursuit. Why is science so toxic and anti life? What good is science if all its byproducts are harmful?

The Annunaki seem like some pretty cool dudes all except for the making us fight over their silly feuds stuff. I'd like to get a little of that non-polluting zero-point energy technology and see where science can go. I don't get the reluctance.


So let me put the few answers given together.

The annunaki came to earth. Either genetically altered us into shiny thing finders or realised we were superior shiny thing finders in which case evolution is correct.

They were either a medical genius or not very advanced. The later meaning they could not of genitically alter us so evolution wins.

They use gold to repair their atmosphere and enslave us to do it. They also use us to fight and die in their disputes and you think they are 'cool dudes'.

On the other hand our science provides you with heat, light, medicine, music, entertainment, transport and everything from clocks to computers and they are evil lying egotists that continually conspire to mislead for self gain.

Lets look for the evidence to back up our science. It is vast and readily available in library's, on the internet, schools to name a few. With evolution you can even confirm a great deal by going out into your garden.

Let us now look at the evidence for your claims .................................... Waiting



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Not me, all the authors I refer to are listed as NON FICTION writers.

Because they try to pass off fiction as nonfiction. But since you're fond of Wikipedia and how it categorizes people, you should note that it lists von Däniken as being a pseudoscientist, Sitchin as being a pseudoscientist, and Pye as being a pseudoscientist. Is that definitive enough for you?


So I'm not sure what your trying to get at when all I'm able to find on evolution is either in debate or inconclusive. I would seriously love to see anything about evolution that does not have the words in debate, inconclusive, unsure, etc….

If you're claiming that you can't find anything conclusive on evolution then it's due to you not looking very hard. Here, I'll provide you with a source so you can no longer honestly make that claim:

Evolution is a fact and a theory..



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
can anyone name another animal that turned into a completely different species?

why can't some consider, just for a moment, how crazy that actually is.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
can anyone name another animal that turned into a completely different species?

why can't some consider, just for a moment, how crazy that actually is.


What do you mean by one animal that turned into another?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
can anyone name another animal that turned into a completely different species?

why can't some consider, just for a moment, how crazy that actually is.


What do you mean by one animal that turned into another?


I don't think it gets any more direct.

Why the hell hasn't my chimpanzee received his social security card in the mail yet?

Holy crap, man. Wake up.
edit on 8-11-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join