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: 62
31
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBar
I like to use the evidence i have at hand(literally) that helps back up and prove the primate theory.

Simply move your hand down your back until you reach a bone just just above and between your buttocks. You should be able to feel the Coccyx.

Evolution debunkers care to explain this to me ?
edit on 9-11-2011 by TheBar because: (no reason given)


And saying that. Those who don't believe we're a primate might want to feel that coccyx with their opposable thumb. Opposable thumbs are a signature feature of the primate family ->




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Evolution is not a fact....

Evolution, briefly defined, is a shift in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. This is an observable, testable, verifiable phenomenon. How does that not constitute a fact?

The theory of evolution is a framework that ties together all of the facts and evidence surrounding the phenomenon of evolution.


It can't be proven as fact until it is observed with 100% accuracy, and stands up to testing - which it can't.

If you're referring to the theory of evolution when you say "it" in this context, then I'd agree with the first part of your statement -- it will never be a proven fact. No scientific theory will ever be a proven fact. Facts and theories don't occupy different levels on some hierarchy of information, they serve two totally different purposes and are two totally different constructs.

As far as it being observed, scientific theories aren't observed. The phenomena that are one part of a scientific theory can be. The phenomenon of evolution, as defined above, has been observed.

As far as standing up to testing, scientific theories operate on falsifiability -- they are repeatedly tested and reevaluated in light of new evidence. If the theory of evolution didn't stand up to testing, it would have fallen by now. I'm not even saying that it will never be replaced by another theory that explains biodiversity, but no evidence presented to date has been able to falsify it.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by Barcs
 


Then by all means if you feel that way stay out of the thread. I for one, although I disagree with creationists and those who stand against what I think is good evidence for the evolutionary theory, enjoy the back and forth and hearing their views and reasons for them. Your arrogance is disturbing and not beneficial in the least. But of course, that is only my opinion and I could be wrong.


Arrogance? I'm simply reiterating information that has been gathered and studied for over a hundred years. When I say something is a scientific fact, I provide a source. Scientific facts are not arrogant. They are accurate. If you have been reading the thread at all, you'd have noticed the blatant dishonestly and ignoring of science and evidence that's been going on. It would be different if they were civil and actually provided counterpoints or evidence, but not a single one has done anything besides repeat old arguments that have been debunked. If the pursuit and spreading of knowledge is arrogant, then I'm the most arrogant person in the world.


I agree with Barcs. These people do appear to just make stuff up or have a fingers in their ears attitude to anything which is explained to them regarding evolution. But how? questions are always welcome however alot of these people keep asking but how? just so they can say but how? yet again. They don't want an answer. They want to draw attention to the bible.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I noticed you may not have read far enough in my post to see this, would you please reply to it? It should be easy for someone so smart and able to apply "scientific" reasoning.

I said earlier:
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?



You can throw gold grains up in the air...and either way, they also believed the universe is a massive dome surrounded by saltwater with the earth being the centre of this dome. We know for a fact that's not the case, and given that we've known about this for hundreds of years, you can't really claim they're super advanced by today's standards after getting it wrong
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact.


What are you talking about??? There's no gold suspended, and it most certainly isn't a requirement. You might wanna read up on weather manipulation



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It looks like I might be corrected here, they just found proof of a cat evolving.
Check this out.
www.youtube.com...


EVERYTHING is evolving...constantly


Hell, humans have evolved quite a bit over recent years. For example, there's humans that built up a natural resistance against certain viruses and bacteria. And women are on average shorter than they were 100 years ago. We have observed evolution not only in the lab, but have observed it in nature as well.

And as I mentioned a dozen times (and you keep on ignoring it): We are actively using the theory to predict future outcomes in modern medicine. We wouldn't be able to do that if the theory were wrong. But keep on ignoring that FACT



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.


You still haven't answered me. I was asking where this translation came from, and if anyone else has translated it that way. If only one man sees it as such, then perhaps there is another, more logical explanation?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact.


What are you talking about??? There's no gold suspended, and it most certainly isn't a requirement. You might wanna read up on weather manipulation


I think its possible. We don't know everything about every different type of athmosphere. Your assuming again that everything is based on what we know and thats just not how it works.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.


You still haven't answered me. I was asking where this translation came from, and if anyone else has translated it that way. If only one man sees it as such, then perhaps there is another, more logical explanation?


I like your style and agree that more than one source would be better so how about the bible mentioning gold in part of our service?
The bible even mentions this in the index. Gold played a special part in the bible and not just for manufacturing things.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm going to frame that response to the question you obviously have no scientific answer to. They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact. You keep minimizing their knowledge and the more you do it the less smart you seem.


You still haven't answered me. I was asking where this translation came from, and if anyone else has translated it that way. If only one man sees it as such, then perhaps there is another, more logical explanation?


I like your style and agree that more than one source would be better so how about the bible mentioning gold in part of our service?
The bible even mentions this in the index. Gold played a special part in the bible and not just for manufacturing things.


Because the religious institutions coming out with religious texts want...wait for it...waaaaaaait for it....GOLD! Well, nowadays it's money, but in ancient times gold WAS money



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I do not count the Bible as a source. It is no more an authority than a modern day fairy tale or fantasy novel. It is a collection of different beliefs construed to appear as if it were one. It also has no bearing on science, as has been proven in the past as the church has vigorously defended the Bible science, only to be proven wrong, time and time again.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I do not count the Bible as a source. It is no more an authority than a modern day fairy tale or fantasy novel. It is a collection of different beliefs construed to appear as if it were one. It also has no bearing on science, as has been proven in the past as the church has vigorously defended the Bible science, only to be proven wrong, time and time again.


Well you don't count it because your taking it in the current understanding. Of course faith was only brought in to enslave people for gold. Be good, and serve gold and do a good job and you will get your powers back, get to go back home, and live the way you were suppose to.

Of course that didn't happen with everyone so we got left behind. The beliefs as you tout are pretty straight forward. It just wasn't so clear that the whole thing was over gold. And yes gold used to be the start of the monetary system, I'm sure it's no coincedence. I would be interested in learning how slavery came into our grasp.
If it goes back as far as we can read, then its also a good guess we got it from god.

God was real, as much as you want to imagine him otherwise. Of course the whole belief of him sitting right next to you right now is completly insane, and is considered to be imaginary friends.
He screwed us, and bad. He got his gold, he enslaved us to get it, and in the process, removed powers that we have, and punish us through DNA damage and left us stranded on a planet that was not intended for us.

It doesn't matter what your belief is, intervention / evolution, The question always starts over with who or what created us. If you want to believe we evolved, then you have to own up to the obvious fact that we suck, we don't fit in here and something is seriously wrong.

At the same time, if you think we were created by someone, then how could it be possible that we are stranded on a planet that isn't meant for us. There is only one answer, god was NOT our creator. Of course our mtDNA says the same thing. How can we be 200,000 years old when suposedly put us here 7,000 years ago. The only other plausible option here is that he frankenstiened us from other existing life.

It would be like a scientist taking a 200,000 year old grape, and genetically engineering it to mix with a 50,000 year old bananna. Depending on how it's done the DNA might look like this grapeanna is 200,000 years old, when its actaully not



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I do not count the Bible as a source. It is no more an authority than a modern day fairy tale or fantasy novel. It is a collection of different beliefs construed to appear as if it were one. It also has no bearing on science, as has been proven in the past as the church has vigorously defended the Bible science, only to be proven wrong, time and time again.


If you think the whole idea of us having disabled powers sounds weird, here is a list of good reasons why...

There are seven reasons that suggest we have disabled powers.

1. In my over thirty years studying the supernatural and paranormal, I always thought it was odd that reports about other life that visits us, seems to always have special powers, and we don’t. Looking at this from the commonality of life, we appear to be missing some abilities.

2. There are multiple suggestions in the bible that also concur with us having ability’s removed from us, as a form of punishment. One of which is telepathy, and another called perceive. There might be others missing as well.

3. Vestigial organs are present in the human species, and could be part of some or our disabled ability’s.

4. Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.

5. The size of our head is not average by comparison to other life here on earth. In comparison to our body size, our head exceeds the compared percentage by anything else here on earth.

6. Lloyd Pye reveals DNA findings that could also support the idea of us having disabled powers. The first is that our DNA has been tampered with, and the second is the inverted sections, the third is the dormant unrecognizable sections.

7. Heightened remaining senses. We are the only species that has sex for enjoyment, as just an example. There are many things about are existing senses that could be overly sensitive as a result of missing ability’s.

While I have no proof that this is exactly what has happened, I also can't prove that monkeys can't fly. If some or all of these sound a little to hard to swallow I guess we can all just agree that they are one big fat coincedence.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by TheBar
I like to use the evidence i have at hand(literally) that helps back up and prove the primate theory.

Simply move your hand down your back until you reach a bone just just above and between your buttocks. You should be able to feel the Coccyx.

Evolution debunkers care to explain this to me ?
edit on 9-11-2011 by TheBar because: (no reason given)


And saying that. Those who don't believe we're a primate might want to feel that coccyx with their opposable thumb. Opposable thumbs are a signature feature of the primate family ->


In all honesty, not that I buy this but these two examples have to be by far the best I have ever read. Kudos to you man, and if our DNA wasnt so hacked up right now, I would be totally stumped and have to agree with you. Not so much on the opposable thumb but on the missing tail.

Evolutionists really win on the tail, not that Im convinced. I wonder if in our intended design maybe we actually have tails. I do remember seeing something on TV saying that in our early stage of development, we actually have a tail that can be seen.
edit on 9-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Evolution is not a fact....

Evolution, briefly defined, is a shift in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. This is an observable, testable, verifiable phenomenon. How does that not constitute a fact?

The theory of evolution is a framework that ties together all of the facts and evidence surrounding the phenomenon of evolution.


It can't be proven as fact until it is observed with 100% accuracy, and stands up to testing - which it can't.

If you're referring to the theory of evolution when you say "it" in this context, then I'd agree with the first part of your statement -- it will never be a proven fact. No scientific theory will ever be a proven fact. Facts and theories don't occupy different levels on some hierarchy of information, they serve two totally different purposes and are two totally different constructs.

As far as it being observed, scientific theories aren't observed. The phenomena that are one part of a scientific theory can be. The phenomenon of evolution, as defined above, has been observed.

As far as standing up to testing, scientific theories operate on falsifiability -- they are repeatedly tested and reevaluated in light of new evidence. If the theory of evolution didn't stand up to testing, it would have fallen by now. I'm not even saying that it will never be replaced by another theory that explains biodiversity, but no evidence presented to date has been able to falsify it.


Oh so your trying to say that evolution is a PROVEN theory? Can you give us a link that doesn't include statements like "in debate' or "inconclusive?" Cause no one on here has yet.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I also was unable to find anything online indicating that there is any truth to us using 10% of our brains.
But is it because they have it technically wrong when it's 10% of the capacity of our brains? The world may never know.
I will say it's just a little to cute how the pineal gland is housed in the center just below the cerebral cortex.
The pineal gland is dormant and they don't know what it does. IMO it looks like it connects the cerrabelum to the cerebral cortex.

Besides, how did this aleged rumor get started to begin with and how did someone come up with 10%? Important statistics like this that are now claimed to be rectally derived make me wonder what is really going on.
edit on 9-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Here's the Snopes article on it. We most certainly are not limited to 10% of our brains.

www.snopes.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


At the same time, if you think we were created by someone, then how could it be possible that we are stranded on a planet that isn't meant for us. There is only one answer, god was NOT our creator. Of course our mtDNA says the same thing. How can we be 200,000 years old when suposedly put us here 7,000 years ago. The only other plausible option here is that he frankenstiened us from other existing life.

I think you're missing the scenario that's more plausible than any of the ones you've outlined here -- that the Bible is not meant to be taken as literal fact.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The endless deluge of evolution threads is at least casting doubt upon its applicability to humans.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Oh so your trying to say that evolution is a PROVEN theory? Can you give us a link that doesn't include statements like "in debate' or "inconclusive?" Cause no one on here has yet.

Please learn to read before you post. In the very post of mine that you quoted I said the following:


If you're referring to the theory of evolution when you say "it" in this context, then I'd agree with the first part of your statement -- it will never be a proven fact. No scientific theory will ever be a proven fact. Facts and theories don't occupy different levels on some hierarchy of information, they serve two totally different purposes and are two totally different constructs.

Did you somehow miss the part in my post, the post that you quoted in your reply, where I said the no scientific theory will ever be a proven fact?

Further, in a reply your earlier post where you made the exact same ridiculous claim, I gave you a link that explained the difference between the observable fact of evolution and the scientific theory of evolution. Here's a link to my reply to your post, and here's another link to the article I mention in that post:

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

You have now been provided twice with a link explaining why evolution is both a fact and a theory. I'm betting you won't read it this time either.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join