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: 84
31
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


No they are still right, you just now have to add another step.

So they're still right, even though you admitted to making the first one up and that the second one was wrong?


I'm sorry but believing we bottlenecked though one life is just idiotic, especially since the assam tribune clearly points out we never dropped below tens of thousands. So where are the bones ????????

We didn't bottleneck through one organism. If you're seriously making this claim, then you clearly don't understand how mtDNA is passed down. Your "where are the bones" question has been answered repeatedly. Go back and look at the replies to your posts.


I never did believe in it, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt to see if the steps would work.

How were you giving me the benefit of the doubt when they were your steps?


Not sure if you wanted authors or website, how about both. Remember the one I plagerized.... www.newgeology.us... It's the non scientific read which makes it a tad easier to hold.

The statement on the website that you just linked that's relevant to this particular part of the conversation is:


Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.

Note the complete lack of citations to other research or any kind of evidence to support that statement?


Actually we didn't diverge, we actaully crossbreeded, which is also in the bible. Now its another subject that goes against my belief and understanding but it might just be possible that specific humanoid species are cross breedable.

So you're asserting that a divergent can't crossbreed with its antecedent? Not only is that not true, but if the divergence was narrow enough, descendent species can interbreed, as in the case of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.


Not including primates however, LOL.

Not all primates can interbreed. You're confusing genus with species. Again.


Well maybe in your opinion, but IMO I have yet to see a strand of evolution work that sounds plausable.

Exactly. You're helping me make my point. If you applied the same burden of proof to your hypothesis that you did to evolution, you wouldn't believe yourself either. But you require zero objective evidence for your hypothesis while playing deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to evidence that you've been provided for evolution. Hence, argument from personal incredulity.




posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





True, not anymore than it proves evolution.


Except, DNA FULLY PROVES EVOLUTION. You can keep on ignoring it all you want, all it shows is your ignorance towards facts


I've posted links that irrefutably show DNA supports the theory...I can't believe you're that brainwashed, you simply ignore facts.




When I look at these I see the possibility of other life from the cosmos that were visitors at one point. If they were human, then they are human. If they were another species, then they were another species. It once again proves that we are not alone in the universe.


Except...you provide ZERO objective evidence supporting any of your claims.




So people move around. I guess I don't see the connection. I'm in the united states, we are a melting pot of life from all over the globe.


And thanks to DNA, we can trade how exactly your family ended up where it is...and from which subgroup of humans you come. For example, we could figure out if you have Neanderthal DNA remnants like some people do...or whether you are related to Egyptian pharaos.




Just because its down to sections of our life does not account for all of our life. It's like you found one bone of a transgressed primate so you call that proof.


Like I said, it's THOUSANDS of bones that all fit the theory...with DNA fully backing it up as well. And of course we're actively applying the theory...a fact you simply continue to ignore as well





Of course we can predict. And its easy to accept knowing we will never be around to see the affects of it.



Now you're clearly showing that you don't even bother to click on people's links


I have already explained to you that they are using the theory to predict future outcomes in medicine, to create vaccinations and antibiotics...so they very well see the effects of it. On top of that, they witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature...but who cares about facts, right?

It's pretty clear that you aren't able to process facts and objective evidence if they go against your belief...and that's kinda sad. You close your eyes to reality in favor of some fantasyland fairytale



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






It "only" took 15m years as we now know
So let me get this straight. You think we evolved from apes or something else in 15 million years. Now we can find bones to diansours that were here way back before that, but we can't find any bones to prove transgression.

Let me break this down for you so its easier to see how impossible evolution is.


No, let me break it down for you very simply.

First, Darwin didn't claim that we are descended from apes. He said that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. This point is critical and if you're claiming that Darwin said that, your whole argument falls apart.

Second, do you have any idea how rare fossils are? What we have are only a very, teeny, tiny fraction of all the organisms that have ever existed. Now, the ones we DO have fit the theory. Which is where the theory comes from--observation!


1st. you have to have mutations typically from radiation, to cause the types of changes we are talking about. But lets agree for the argument this actually happened. Now typically you will end up with mass defects along these stages, making it more than obvious, radiation played a part in this. Of course this species also dies out very quickly. But lets ignore that step even though its a vital one.


Totally nonsensical argument. Mutations do not happen typically from radiation, and typically you do not end up with mass defects.


2nd you have to have the same mutation happen to mass amounts of people at the same time, and in the same way.


No you don't, although that's what a lot of population biologists thought when Darwin first published On the Origin of Species, because there was no mechanism known at the time to explain how those traits wouldn't survive more than one generation. The answer is, of course, genes.


The reason is because if you don't, then you would be left with only one or two people to produce offspring which would be incest, and the race would die out quick and in a cruel way. But lest assume we made it past this part too.


You don't think there's been a lot of inbreeding and incest going on in the human race? Really? That's very easily proven mathematically. On some level, we are all related to each other genetically.


3rd Stages 1 and 2 would have to happen to mass amounts of people in the same way, over the course of millions of years. There of course would be mass amounts of bones left behind to prove this step, its vital to identify, and there is simply no excuse for us not having this proof.


No, there wouldn't be "mass amounts of bones." It is really tough to become a fossil. Go look up just how tough.


4th stage. Lets assume we still made it over all these hurdles, we should have mass variable stages of evolution with all 5 million species. Keep in mind we have NONE. It's a cold dose of reality that makes me wonder how you guys can belive in such nonsense. Any claim to be found are quickly debunked, and I for one would have no problem accepting one, as long as it can be proven its good proof. I would have no problem believing in this crap if there was some substance to it.


From the looks of it, I'd say you wouldn't know "good proof" if it bit you in the butt.


5th stage. Our DNA would have to play hide and seek with us hiding the real truth which is telling us that we are 200,000 years old. It makes no sense to have 200,000 year old DNA if we evolved millions of years ago, unless the DNA changes the way evolutionists think. If it does, then DNA is completly useless in pathlogy.


Here's a tip. Go take a Biochemistry 101 class.


6th stage. All and any proof of evolution would have to dissapear off the face of the earth, only leaving behind what we have today. In addition all evolution would also have to stop at this point otherwise we would be able to trace it.


More nonsense.

edit on 11/22/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/22/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So they're still right, even though you admitted to making the first one up and that the second one was wrong?
Depends on how you look at it.




We didn't bottleneck through one organism. If you're seriously making this claim, then you clearly don't understand how mtDNA is passed down. Your "where are the bones" question has been answered repeatedly. Go back and look at the replies to your posts.
So this is sticking to one of my steps.




How were you giving me the benefit of the doubt when they were your steps?
Because they were all ludicris but I pretended for the moment they were possible.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm assuming your referring to the bible. Not sure which book. Anyhow, how do you know its a storybook. I have never read anything in it or the preface that indicates that it is or isn't anything specific. Of course without supernatural understanding, I can see why you might look at it like that. Current belief and religion are just all wrong, so if thats what your basing your attituide on your feelings are understandable.

Trillions of years is what it would take for us to have evolved from slime, the way that evolutionists think we have. The problem here is there has never been a confirmed case of anything evolving from anything. Now we have over 5 million species on our planet alone but we can't find anything that has left any trace evidence of evolving from anything else.

I'm going to go with the numbers. IMO 5 million is a lot and says your wrong.


You aren't reading the posts or have very poor reading comprehension. I was responding to your question asking what if the book contained scientific facts instead of stories. I'm not referring to any specific book, just answering your question. I know the bible is a story because... wait for it... it is full of stories! Amazing isn't it?

I asked where you got the trillions of years figure from. You are just assuming it would take forever since you can't comprehend it.


the problem here is there has never been a confirmed case of anything evolving from anything.

No. The problem here is that you have ignored every piece of evidence presented to you that shows exactly that. There are thousands of fossils. You need to stop making stuff up. That is 100% false. Your reasoning is illogical and you haven't presented any objective evidence yet.


If you have to ask, your not from here. If you have to think about it, your not from here, if you have to question it, your not from here.

So since some humans ask the question, it automatically means we're not from here? Really? Where do you come up with this stuff? Science has been trying to solve the mystery for centuries, and it's solved. We evolved from homo habilis. All the evidence proves this.

How does 5 million species on planet earth say that evolution is wrong? Keep making things up and repeating yourself. It won't make it true.


but we can't find any bones to prove transgression.

Another lie. We've posted the fossil evidence like 10 times. Ignorance is bliss I guess.


you have to have the same mutation happen to mass amounts of people at the same time, and in the same way. The reason is because if you don't, then you would be left with only one or two people to produce offspring which would be incest, and the race would die out quick and in a cruel way. But lest assume we made it past this part too.

Wrong. Small mutations are bred into the species over time. They don't suddenly become a new species because of tiny change. They pass the change on to their offspring. This has also been addressed, and you choose to ignore the facts yet again.


There of course would be mass amounts of bones left behind to prove this step, its vital to identify, and there is simply no excuse for us not having this proof.

Fossils have been found, but they aren't abundant because fossilization is rare. Another point that's already been debunked.


we should have mass variable stages of evolution with all 5 million species. Keep in mind we have NONE.
Another lie. We have millions of fossils. Where do you come up with all this unsourced nonsense?


and I for one would have no problem accepting one, as long as it can be proven its good proof. I would have no problem believing in this crap if there was some substance to it.

I'm sorry,man, but you keep spitting out lie after lie. It's been proven in this thread that you will not accept good proof or even consider it.


Our DNA would have to play hide and seek with us hiding the real truth which is telling us that we are 200,000 years old. It makes no sense to have 200,000 year old DNA if we evolved millions of years ago, unless the DNA changes the way evolutionists think. If it does, then DNA is completly useless in pathlogy.

You need to read a book on evolution, even a grammar school level book explains this clearly. You have absolutely no clue about what you're saying. Homo sapiens emerged from homo habilis or antecessor around 200,000 years ago. The ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos goes back millions of years. It's all just different branches of the same tree, splitting at different times. Humans didn't just appear 200,000 years ago. They changed enough to make it noticeable on the fossil record. There isn't a set date where all humans were suddenly humans. You can still see the differences in the various human races today, something that you have ignored at least 3 times when I asked. Explain the various races of human without evolution.


All and any proof of evolution would have to dissapear off the face of the earth, only leaving behind what we have today. In addition all evolution would also have to stop at this point otherwise we would be able to trace it.

Normally I'd ignore you, but I'm bored at work today, so you're getting the full treatment. You seem to enjoy being dishonest. There is TONS of proof of evolution. What makes you think it stopped? Again, the races of human PROVE evolution is still active today. 200,000 years it takes to divide humans into several races. Not trillions, 200,000.

I guess a bunch of others already debunked this but you keep making stuff up and thinking its true. I posted the free evolution DVD resources earlier in the thread. They are free, including shipping, so please watch them, and then come back and ask any questions you have about evolution. The failure to learn is on you. I'd love to learn more about the facts behind your theory, but your strongest argument is "we don't fit in, and we ask why, therefor we aren't from here". Try using science to come to that conclusion and see what happens.

edit on 22-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
the funniest thing i find about an evolutionist is the fact that probably 80% of the people who believe it dont actually grasp the material. Like if i was to take 30 different samples of dna from say, 10 different kinds of chickens, and threw them under a high powered microscope and took a picture; A. i bet you couldnt even match up the 3 pictures that went to each kind. B. you couldnt tell me $h!t about what why they are different. and C. you probably wouldn't even know it was a chicken unless somebody told you. scientists have tried forever to prove it right but the fact is its still not. here, lets see what some scientists have to say..

lots here, but to quote a few..

"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."

Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'." (here it is)

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

and much more like..

Nicholas Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel - Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics
and
Albert Einstein- with great quotes like "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

yea.. science is agrees..
more here

edit on 22-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





You aren't reading the posts or have very poor reading comprehension. I was responding to your question asking what if the book contained scientific facts instead of stories. I'm not referring to any specific book, just answering your question. I know the bible is a story because... wait for it... it is full of stories! Amazing isn't it?
And how does your answer explain that you know none of it happened?

No need to wait for it, the bible has been out for a few years now.




I asked where you got the trillions of years figure from. You are just assuming it would take forever since you can't comprehend it.
No I comprehend it, its just that the changes needed would require stages, which would require some time. Now if you believe otherwise, the changes would be to fast and to severe and cause the species to die out.




No. The problem here is that you have ignored every piece of evidence presented to you that shows exactly that. There are thousands of fossils. You need to stop making stuff up. That is 100% false. Your reasoning is illogical and you haven't presented any objective evidence yet.
Ignoring what I present does not mean I haven't presented anything plausible. I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm ignoring theory.




So since some humans ask the question, it automatically means we're not from here? Really? Where do you come up with this stuff? Science has been trying to solve the mystery for centuries, and it's solved. We evolved from homo habilis. All the evidence proves this.

How does 5 million species on planet earth say that evolution is wrong? Keep making things up and repeating yourself. It won't make it true.
Well we could in fact be related to him, as much as its also possible he isn't from earth either. There is no evidence however that we completly originated from his species. This is why you guys are so gullible. Do you realize that the events that needed to take place to connect us to primates, could just as much connect us to anything else?




So since some humans ask the question, it automatically means we're not from here? Really? Where do you come up with this stuff? Science has been trying to solve the mystery for centuries, and it's solved. We evolved from homo habilis. All the evidence proves this.

How does 5 million species on planet earth say that evolution is wrong? Keep making things up and repeating yourself. It won't make it true.
Well science has only been blind to this because there are still a vast majority that refuses to believe in the supernatural. 5 million species are working against your theory because you claim we have found fossils, yet we see no other life that has evolved, or is in the stages of evolution. You have to be so naive to believe this stuff.
Your talking about major differences in evolution when science says there are acceptable differences within reason.



Another lie. We've posted the fossil evidence like 10 times. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
The links you provide only shows what they think we evolved from. I want to see something we KNOW we evolved from.




Wrong. Small mutations are bred into the species over time. They don't suddenly become a new species because of tiny change. They pass the change on to their offspring. This has also been addressed, and you choose to ignore the facts yet again.
No I haven't ignored it, I have made it clear that small changes are acceptable, and large ones would cause the species to die out. So I go back to saying that it would take trillions of years. It's not that your thinking outside the box here, its more like your thinking outside the building.




Fossils have been found, but they aren't abundant because fossilization is rare. Another point that's already been debunked.
I think this excuse is about as lame as why we have no proof of aliens. We do have proof but people turn their heads. I'm sorry why you think we need to pretend fossilication is needed to locate these bones when we seem to be able to find dinasour bones and they are much older.




Another lie. We have millions of fossils. Where do you come up with all this unsourced nonsense?
Not fossils of transisition we dont. It would simply be another species.




I'm sorry,man, but you keep spitting out lie after lie. It's been proven in this thread that you will not accept good proof or even consider it.
I'm ranking your theory right up there with president Regans trickle down theory. Give all the money to the big businesses and the money will trickle down to all the employees. Of course it never worked. The reason is simple. If there is no rule that says they had to share money with the employees, why should they. Evolution is sort of the same w



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I'm sorry,man, but you keep spitting out lie after lie. It's been proven in this thread that you will not accept good proof or even consider it.
Evolution is sort of the same way, we have yet to determine the mechanisim that forced this. Now again I understand there are theorys that make this work, and it seems to be theory, based on theory, based on theory, based on wait for it..... nothing.

The thing thats funny here is I could say the same thing about intervention with one acception. There are very good reasons why they are and will always remain theory. Some of it is from people simply not wanting to believe, or they are scared, while we have little evidence to support it. Any found is quickly debunked not as being fake, but simply not able to authenticate. Again we will never be able to lable anything proof of alien until we can show up at his door step and ask for a DNA sample to compare it to.




You need to read a book on evolution, even a grammar school level book explains this clearly. You have absolutely no clue about what you're saying. Homo sapiens emerged from homo habilis or antecessor around 200,000 years ago. The ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos goes back millions of years. It's all just different branches of the same tree, splitting at different times. Humans didn't just appear 200,000 years ago. They changed enough to make it noticeable on the fossil record. There isn't a set date where all humans were suddenly humans. You can still see the differences in the various human races today, something that you have ignored at least 3 times when I asked. Explain the various races of human without evolution.
If you seriously believe in this, why is it a fact that we were better off back then?




Normally I'd ignore you, but I'm bored at work today, so you're getting the full treatment. You seem to enjoy being dishonest. There is TONS of proof of evolution. What makes you think it stopped? Again, the races of human PROVE evolution is still active today. 200,000 years it takes to divide humans into several races. Not trillions, 200,000.
Well its very kind of you to share your time for sure.




I guess a bunch of others already debunked this but you keep making stuff up and thinking its true. I posted the free evolution DVD resources earlier in the thread. They are free, including shipping, so please watch them, and then come back and ask any questions you have about evolution. The failure to learn is on you. I'd love to learn more about the facts behind your theory, but your strongest argument is "we don't fit in, and we ask why, therefor we aren't from here". Try using science to come to that conclusion and see what happens.
Well it was a crash course statement that I feel has a lot of truth behind it. It's not that simple untill many things are summed up. I think if we have to dig up bones to try to find proof, something is wrong. Why was this knowledge not shared? Why was there no records kept? Why are we not seeing ourselves evolve now? After all your admitting we are 200,000 years old. I will never believe we evolved into an unhealthier species, which is exactly what has happened. Oh sure primates get sick, but not like us. They don't have doctors in the wild, they don't have pharmacys, they don't have medications, and they don't require intervention to make it past puberty.

I missed your link to the free offer and will take you up on it. I probably purposly overlooked it if it had the word free in it. Science was used in most of my conclusions. Not sure if you were reading when I was posting about how different we are in how we smile. Our smile is a sign of agression to any other species here on the planet. There are many different types of smiles but primates (or any other species for that matter) don't smile for the same reasons we do. We don't fit in here, never have, never will, and it's because we arent from here. Just like when I mentioned our hands. The design had a purpose, and it would be obvious given we were living where we are suppose to be. But we arent. So our hands adapted to be tools to help us adapt with the things we are missing.

There is a fine lne between evolving and adapting and they can easilly be confused, very easy. Mostly because they do have a lot in common which adds to the confusion. It's the same thing with supernatural and paranormal. They are different but they have so much in common in addition to the fact that we no very little about both of them, they are offten misused with each other.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 





the funniest thing i find about an evolutionist is the fact that probably 80% of the people who believe it dont actually grasp the material.


Stopped reading your post here because you're demonstrably clueless...

The vast majority of scientists support evolution and in 2009 alone there were over 250k studies supporting the theory. 250k studies in the fields of medicine and biology support it, many of which are ACTIVELY APPLIED. So they're not guessing, they are USING the theory, which wouldn't be possible if it were wrong.

Do yourself a favor and start doing some real research, because your posts are dumbing down others who might buy into your nonsense.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





After all your admitting we are 200,000 years old. I will never believe we evolved into an unhealthier species, which is exactly what has happened.


And just like the rest of your posts, that's 100% nonsense


We aren't unhealthier, hell, thanks to evolution, we actually evolved to the point where we are now 100% resistant to disease we weren't resistant to just a few 100 years ago. Disease that instantly kill a monkey for example.

So your argument that we've become less healthy is nonsense. That is, unless you take into consideration the unhealthy food we now eat...but that's got nothing to do with evolution, it's a product of our economic system



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I looked back a dozen pages for that link on the free dvd and couldn't find it.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   


And just like the rest of your posts, that's 100% nonsense

We aren't unhealthier, hell, thanks to evolution, we actually evolved to the point where we are now 100% resistant to disease we weren't resistant to just a few 100 years ago. Disease that instantly kill a monkey for example.

So your argument that we've become less healthy is nonsense. That is, unless you take into consideration the unhealthy food we now eat...but that's got nothing to do with evolution, it's a product of our economic system
Your serious ??? You actually believe that huh? Tell me about a primate that needs medical attention to live past puberty because if we don't get our shots, we die. Tell me about a primate that has to frequent doctors and medication like we do. Tell me about a primate in the wild that has to get booster shots. Seriously dude your making me laugh.

If you think we evolved, we DE-EVOLVED.

And btw the reason we are eating unhealthy food is because WE MADE the food. The question here is if your smart enough to understand why we made the food. Its because something we are seeking in our INTENDED diet is NOT HERE.
edit on 22-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


And just like the rest of your posts, that's 100% nonsense

We aren't unhealthier, hell, thanks to evolution, we actually evolved to the point where we are now 100% resistant to disease we weren't resistant to just a few 100 years ago. Disease that instantly kill a monkey for example.

So your argument that we've become less healthy is nonsense. That is, unless you take into consideration the unhealthy food we now eat...but that's got nothing to do with evolution, it's a product of our economic system
Your serious ??? You actually believe that huh? Tell me about a primate that needs medical attention to live past puberty because if we don't get our shots, we die. Tell me about a primate that has to frequent doctors and medication like we do. Tell me about a primate in the wild that has to get booster shots. Seriously dude your making me laugh.

If you think we evolved, we DE-EVOLVED.

And btw the reason we are eating unhealthy food is because WE MADE the food. The question here is if your smart enough to understand why we made the food. Its because something we are seeking in our INTENDED diet is NOT HERE.
edit on 22-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


I'd waste time with a long answer, but there's a cold Guinness waiting for me...

Look at the lifespan of humans and primates and you realize how ridiculous your statement of us being less healthy is


And just fyi, monkeys eat/drink just as unhealthily as us. Monkeys booze up all the time on rotten fruit and by stealing drinks


edit on 22-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
im just happy to hear that all of you are smarter than Einstein..



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
im just happy to hear that all of you are smarter than Einstein..


If you're implying that Einstein somehow proved god's existence...please do some proper research


First of all, he didn't believe in a personal god (which means he can't be Christian/Jewish), secondly, he was stating a BELIEF. It's not like his theories where he backed them up with objective evidence...he was merely stating a belief. He could just as well have said giant purple unicorns farted the universe into existence, it would be just as valid given he never provided objective evidence as backup.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
im just happy to hear that all of you are smarter than Einstein..


When did Einstein ever say he didn't believe in evolution? He certainly didn't believe the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Not to mention that he was a physicist and not a biologist, so he's hardly an authority on the subject of evolution.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by RebelRouser
im just happy to hear that all of you are smarter than Einstein..


When did Einstein ever say he didn't believe in evolution? He certainly didn't believe the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Not to mention that he was a physicist and not a biologist, so he's hardly an authority on the subject of evolution.


Facts don't matter in fantasy land....I think we got it all wrong. Key is to make up as many random crazy claims as possible, and it doesn't matter if they're demonstrably wrong


So let me add to it:

A giant purple/yellow unicorn with pink spots farted and crated the universe, and it handed Noah a special breathing apparatus that allowed him to survive inside a whale. That breathing apparatus also dispensed smarties and Snickers bars. True story



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 

dont you think its hypocritical to say i dont understand evolution when you clearly dont understand christianity. maybe its you that needs to be doing the reading..
25 Myths About Christianity.. (to name a few)

2. A Christian must attend church every week or else!

11. Christianity is really only a crutch.

13. Christianity is just like all the other faiths in the world. They are all equally correct.

17. Christians aren’t allowed to think for themselves.

22. Christians must believe that the world was created 6000-10000 years ago in six 24-hour days.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Could it be that sick, unhealthy primates get eaten? Ever heard of ill dogs eating grass as medicine? Lots of primates don’t make it to puberty for many reasons.

If you truly believe that we de evolved then you must agree with evolution. (no such thing as de evolve actually)

The reason why we eat unhealthy food is because we produce food to feed our population. Greed for profit by a few, bulks the food up with crap. We are searching for our intended diet is also crap.

The hands thing you keep repeating sums up your refusal to consider anything put before you. Many species have opposable thumbs. Primates for example so that must mean they don’t belong here either. So why did the aliens bring them here? To gather banana's to feed us gold miners I suppose.

The opposable thumb on rear foot of an opossum must mean that it comes from even further away.

The human brain has allowed us to construct and survive in the world, hands enable us to make those ideas a reality. Without hands we could never have been able to use tools to get to the bone marrow we scavenge which fed our brains development. Simply, without hands we would not be here.

Your other gem is 'If you have to ask why are we here then you don’t belong'. So surely if you have to ask 'if aliens Frankensteined humans' then by your logic (loose term) that cannot be true either.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by Nosred
 

dont you think its hypocritical to say i dont understand evolution when you clearly dont understand christianity. maybe its you that needs to be doing the reading..
25 Myths About Christianity.. (to name a few)

2. A Christian must attend church every week or else!

11. Christianity is really only a crutch.

13. Christianity is just like all the other faiths in the world. They are all equally correct.

17. Christians aren’t allowed to think for themselves.

22. Christians must believe that the world was created 6000-10000 years ago in six 24-hour days.



I for one don't believe the above is true....sadly a ton of guys on ATS insist on being Christians and the above being true. Like, tons of people on here claim the earth is only 6k years old, when this is DEMONSTRABLY wrong. Or they believe in global floods, when this is DEMONSTRABLY wrong



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join