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: 59
31
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That's because we're idiots and eat too much sugar. We did not evolve to be agricultural, so naturally, agriculture makes us sick.

As for the comparison of evolution and gravity. Yeah, they're different concepts, but they are both theories.

The thing about evolution is that it's not a force. It's a description of an effect. It is an observable effect that takes place over millions of years and can be used to predict the mutations in species. You act almost as if you think we should see animals transforming before our very eyes? That is pure ignorance of the subject.




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ya it was so massive that we seem to be missing all of the massive amounts of proof, like bones and fossils. WHERE ARE THE BODYS ?????????????????

We can't even link what few finds of aleged transistion. Something is not working here. Not to mention that our overall presence here on earth went from living harmoniously in the wild to simply not fitting in.

Again, if we evolved, we DE-EVOLVED. We were better off as primates for sure. Look at how sickly we are. We can't even live past puberty without medical intervention, but we evolved right.

Honestly the ONLY positive think I can thing of thats come out of our aleged evolving is we are no longer part of any food chain. In fact we aren't part of anything.

Get a clue people, just like it says in Hebrews in the bible "Earth is not our home"...
gspcsermons.blogspot.com...
edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: k


harmoniously in the wild??... sure, if you got a rifle or some other way to unbitchify yourself because generally speaking, wild animals lives are full of rape, fighting, disease and repeat pregnancy. since when do animals not get sick? have you looked at statistical lifespans lately? what you are saying is completely contrary to the fact that this so called evolution appears to have positive effects on the lifespan, not negative.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
reply to post by Nosred
 


To compare gravity and evolution is silly....

These are both two different concepts.

We can see the effects of gravity in our life - feel it, measure it....

You can not see this with evolution - and I will argue every point you bring forward.


I hate to have to tell you, but evolution has more proof than gravity.

For the current theory of gravity to even make sense scientists have to invent all this junk like dark matter (which you can't see or detect, we don't even know it exists) just for the theory to work.

Evolution and Germ theory are pretty much the most complete theories in all of science, and the ones with the most evidence.


Edit: Physics, Biology, is there any class you guys didn't sleep through in high school?
edit on 8-11-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: And yes you can measure the effects of evolution. It can be observed through changes of allele frequencies or traits in a population over successive generations.
edit on 8-11-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."


- Stephen Jay Gould



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ya it was so massive that we seem to be missing all of the massive amounts of proof, like bones and fossils. WHERE ARE THE BODYS ?????????????????

You asked this question earlier in this thread and someone else answered it. Did you not read their reply or did you just ignore it?

Where are the bones? You're walking on them. Bones decompose. Here’s a very brief description of the various processes.

Where are the fossils? Fossils only form under a very specific set of conditions. Here’s a very brief description of the process. Keep in mind that fossil formation has been researched well enough that scientists can target geological formations that are most likely to yield fossils with a pretty good success rate.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
sorry wrong button

edit on 8-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You mentioned it's all got to do with how you use science and I just mentioned the same thing in another post. That's right, but it's not you and me "using" science, it's the people who sign the paychecks of the people who "do" the science who really have the power.

We could do so much better here on Earth as far as creating a near zero impact on the immediate biosphere and making that our priority. We know oil is a huge culprit, so why can't we focus on other forms of energy production that don't threaten disaster? Isn't science up to the challenge? How long do we have to hear that solar is too expensive compared to oil? Who has control over that? me or you? No matter how much science we use it is no match for the big oil companies. They either buy your patents or worse. Science absolutely has no conscience and apparently neither do the people who control it.

I think this has a lot to do with evolution because it looks as though we are the only species with the ability and the intentional will to cause our own extinction. How come we have this amazing gift of technology and we use it in such an irresponsible way that we are actually poisoning the planet and allowing people to starve and suffer needless poverty? If we had access to the Annunakis' technology (even just a little bit) and a few pointers on using zero point energy (clue: it comes from the Higgs field), talk to Tom Valone and Marco Rodin et al they could set in motion an energy renaissance and bring a better standard of living to everyone around the world not just a handful of greedy rotten sobs.

I've said before that there is definitely a mechanism of adaptation going on, but there are too many inconsistencies across the board for me not to not even entertain the possibility that something else is going on. Do you think governments would have secrets and lie to their people? Don't you believe zero or near zero impact energy production is possible? Iterationzero says "science is advancing at amazing speed" and I'm like WTF?

Here's your chance to school me on how science is done: explain to me how those people over seven thousand years ago knew that gold could be suspended in an atmosphere? Could they have nailed it just by coincidence? What a preposterous thing to "just make up" and be absolutely correct! How does your reply match Occam's scrutiny?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
Parts of the evolution theory seem credible like mutations , heredity, within a species. One species evolving into another seems unlikely without intervention. Also, how does evolution describe the split between animal organisms and plant life?


right????


there are too many important things that don't fit. Intervention is the simplest answer.

So far science says 10% of the planets we discover in other solar systems could harbor life. That translates to greater odds of us being seeded here by older, much more technologically advanced species than evolving from slime. The universe is most likely teeming with life that we have no way of detecting. poor us!!!



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
Parts of the evolution theory seem credible like mutations , heredity, within a species. One species evolving into another seems unlikely without intervention. Also, how does evolution describe the split between animal organisms and plant life?


right????


there are too many important things that don't fit. Intervention is the simplest answer.

So far science says 10% of the planets we discover in other solar systems could harbor life. That translates to greater odds of us being seeded here by older, much more technologically advanced species than evolving from slime. The universe is most likely teeming with life that we have no way of detecting. poor us!!!


Exactly right. We are so behind the times. Take a look at sodom and gamora in the bible. That was an atomic bomb. If aliens had atomic bombs back in biblical times, imagine what they have today. Occam's razor would suggest that intervention is the correct answer ... en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





We know oil is a huge culprit, so why can't we focus on other forms of energy production that don't threaten disaster? Isn't science up to the challenge? How long do we have to hear that solar is too expensive compared to oil? Who has control over that? me or you? No matter how much science we use it is no match for the big oil companies. They either buy your patents or worse. Science absolutely has no conscience and apparently neither do the people who control it.


That's exactly what the OWS guys are protesting against. The oil industry is so strong, it BUYS politicians and blocks anything supporting solar or other alternative energies



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
Parts of the evolution theory seem credible like mutations , heredity, within a species. One species evolving into another seems unlikely without intervention. Also, how does evolution describe the split between animal organisms and plant life?


right????


there are too many important things that don't fit. Intervention is the simplest answer.

So far science says 10% of the planets we discover in other solar systems could harbor life. That translates to greater odds of us being seeded here by older, much more technologically advanced species than evolving from slime. The universe is most likely teeming with life that we have no way of detecting. poor us!!!


Exactly right. We are so behind the times. Take a look at sodom and gamora in the bible. That was an atomic bomb. If aliens had atomic bombs back in biblical times, imagine what they have today. Occam's razor would suggest that intervention is the correct answer ... en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Zero proof for an atomic bomb...but let's state is as fact anyway. Who cares about facts anyway, right?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If this is true then how can you say you have proof if proof melts away like that.
I'm questioning the site you gave because they had this article next to the one you directed me too...



How to make anything invisible

Cars, buildings, spacecraft and you!

All of which I believe in, but not that we have this technology yet.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
Parts of the evolution theory seem credible like mutations , heredity, within a species. One species evolving into another seems unlikely without intervention. Also, how does evolution describe the split between animal organisms and plant life?


right????


there are too many important things that don't fit. Intervention is the simplest answer.

So far science says 10% of the planets we discover in other solar systems could harbor life. That translates to greater odds of us being seeded here by older, much more technologically advanced species than evolving from slime. The universe is most likely teeming with life that we have no way of detecting. poor us!!!


Exactly right. We are so behind the times. Take a look at sodom and gamora in the bible. That was an atomic bomb. If aliens had atomic bombs back in biblical times, imagine what they have today. Occam's razor would suggest that intervention is the correct answer ... en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Zero proof for an atomic bomb...but let's state is as fact anyway. Who cares about facts anyway, right?


Well don't take my word, or von danikens, read it for yourself... www.halexandria.org...



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Just to make this perfectly clear: The bible is only proof of what people believed in hundreds of years ago given their limited amount of knowledge. It doesn't represent reality for crying out loud


So if you post links like this, all you're showing is that your knowledge essentially stops somewhere around the 14th century...and anything beyond that is off limits if it goes against your faith. That's LUDACRIS, CRAZY, AND BEYOND IGNORANT OF FACTS.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Just to make this perfectly clear: The bible is only proof of what people believed in hundreds of years ago given their limited amount of knowledge. It doesn't represent reality for crying out loud


So if you post links like this, all you're showing is that your knowledge essentially stops somewhere around the 14th century...and anything beyond that is off limits if it goes against your faith. That's LUDACRIS, CRAZY, AND BEYOND IGNORANT OF FACTS.


Only because you think we evolved from slime.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Just to make this perfectly clear: The bible is only proof of what people believed in hundreds of years ago given their limited amount of knowledge. It doesn't represent reality for crying out loud


So if you post links like this, all you're showing is that your knowledge essentially stops somewhere around the 14th century...and anything beyond that is off limits if it goes against your faith. That's LUDACRIS, CRAZY, AND BEYOND IGNORANT OF FACTS.


Only because you think we evolved from slime.


That's because the FACTS tell us so


For posting in a thread asking for you to prove evolution wrong, you haven't really posted anything post worthy :lo:



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think that the whole idea of atheists came about once people were smart enough to figure out that imaginary friends is stupid.

I never said I believe in faith, but I do believe it happened at one point and I do believe that whats in the bible happened too. So much so that you might think someone would have been smart enough to take the time to write about it. OH THEY did it's called the bible.

I do agree some people that believe in faith have lost some IQ points. Thats not me.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do you believe the bible is 100% correct? Because if you do, I can show you at least 10 things that are DEMONSTRABLY wrong...and I'm talking about major flaws, not some minor things



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do you believe the bible is 100% correct? Because if you do, I can show you at least 10 things that are DEMONSTRABLY wrong...and I'm talking about major flaws, not some minor things


Please, oh yes, all 10.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
You know - I have heard the theory of evolution argued time and time again; mostly on this web forum.

It always turns into a big, long, and drawn out ordeal.


However - the question that has never been answered by people who beleive in evolution is this: Where are all the bodies?!?!?!

The response that "Oh they wouldn't have lasted that long in the elements/wild" is complete bull, and a cop out.

To me that response is just as stupid as you thinking that our explinations of the bible is stupid.

Science is the search for facts.... Bending rules and ideas to conform to your ideas is not science, but is in fact an essence of faith....

If the bodies wouldn't have lasted in the wild - then why do we have millions of corpses and proof of cromags, neandrethals, etc?

If evolution takes place over millions of years, even hundreds of thousands, there would be PROOF!

There is no proof, so there for the theory is bogus - horse doo doo - dung - not valid.

It is so silly to me that you would rather place your faith in your own faulty ideas that holds no water - and defend them tooth and nail; but yet you call us stuipid for beleiving in God, or a higher power.

Neither are able to be proven - and there fore both should be considered equally viable as theory according to your psudo science, which you change to fit your conformist ideas.

I beleive in God because I have seen proof - I don't care if you beleive me. I have seen proof. But you would argue those with me too, because it doesn't hold water in your limited mind set.

I have met Christians, Islamists, etc., who are more apt to consider your ideas of science than you are willing to conceive of God.... That tells me that you are the ones with a limited mind, who can't consider there is something out there you don't understand.

I considered Evolution - but I have denounced it because there is no solid proof - only theory.

No one was on earth millions of years ago to follow the track of biological growth, it is only off hear say, and a mans opinion.

And the father of evolution didn't even beleive in it himself!!!!

What does that say?

The very creator of the theory thought it was bogus, but you are the ones who has been brain washed by modern society to feel evolution is fact, when it is truly a theory - and will always remain that way.

And a stupid one at that.

It's like arguing with children who only want to see things their way.

Just answer - where is the missing link? Where are all the slow progressive mutations?

THEY DON'T EXIST

By your science, that's like saying Santa Clause is real because I've seen pictures of the north pole.....

Just dumb.




top topics



 
31
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join