Getting to the Bottom of Evolution, page 10

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 27-11-2012 @ 11:15 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero

If evoluton were observable, at least in terms of what exactly was causing the changes, it would put an end to the whole question idea dead on, instead people have automatically accepted the fact that there are changes, so it must just be evolution, when in fact those changes all happen for a scientific, verifiable reason, which will all be verfied and accounted for, one day.

Toothy, look up Richard Lenski at the University of Wisconsin and check out the extremely well-done experiment he and his students did with E. coli. IMO it's one of the best-designed and executed experiments ever done.

If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

reply posted on 27-11-2012 @ 03:03 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by HappyBunny

Toothy, look up Richard Lenski at the University of Wisconsin and check out the extremely well-done experiment he and his students did with E. coli. IMO it's one of the best-designed and executed experiments ever done.

If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Well I found the wiki on him...

lenski wiki

One of the things I have to point out is how is claiming that repeatable changes in seperate populations occured in his testing, which is a clear indication to me that the subjects are being exposed to something they didn't know about. Of course it could be anything, as in the case of ADHD that I keep pointing to.

The bacteria never changed into another organisim but an assumption was made that because some changes were found, it was on its way to eventually become something else, not E Coli bacteria.

There has never been any proof that a species evolves into another species, but an assumption is always made that because there are changes found, that its on its way to doing so. It is perhaps the biggest load of crap when it comes to evolution. Changes don't prove macroevolution, but is sure is assumed.

Just like in the example of the kodiac bear mating with the polar bear, and creating a new offspring, you started with bears, and you ended up with bears. As with the E Coli, you started with Ecoli and ended with EColi.

We just never seem to find that instant where a species is no longer that species, hasn't that ever made you wonder? With so much evolution going on right under our noses, you would think we would be able to prove that it's happening, but we can't, all we can prove is there are changes. But changes don't prove evolution, yet all changes are assumed to be evolution. These are the types of problems that occur when people start making assumptions, and when others start accepting those assumptions as proof. They are not proof, they are only speculation.

These changes can be from so many things, they can be from radiation in the air, sickness in the air, there are so many things it's almost impossible to narrow down what is causing what to change. These changes are not part of any process like claimed by evolutionists, and to admit so, strongly suggests intelligent programming of some sort.

If evolution is capable of rendering over a billion species, then by all definition, it is a creator, there is no way you can side step that fact. A process could be a creator, it doesn't have to be a god like we are all taught. And anything that has made over a billion species didn't do so by accident, it's clear there is an agenda behind it all.

reply posted on 27-11-2012 @ 06:53 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I didn't think I would have to go to the extent of having to explain this, but it looks like I will have to no doubt.

A theory is only as good as its weakest link. Everything I have been directed to as far as links has turned out to be written as though the subject was a hypothesis. There seems to be a lot of guess work and about 2% fact.

You still haven't countered my evidence, you are still playing word games. Address the actual evidence. Prove me wrong.

Intervention is backed up with historical documents, which is not the case with evolutionism.
You never even gave a solid reason or proof to discredit the written documents, just that you do. Supernatural events are not testable to scientific standards so this garbage about it being debunked isn't even possible, of course it can't be proved either, except that we have documentation stating that its so.

The Origin of Species is a scientific book based on facts, which is not the case with interventionismism. You never even gave a solid reason or proof to discredit the weblinks I posted, just that you do.

A bunch of ancient scrolls found in a cave don't constitute as historical documents, and they aren't the same as scientific experimentation.

I have presented all the facts that support intervention,

WHERE?

target food

That you made up on the spot.

Pye's DNA findings

That have never been verified in a lab or presented to any scientist

to it being written in the bible

The bible doesn't mention aliens. It's difficult to interpret or even know for sure who wrote the stories and whether or not they happened literally as described. Believing intervention is merely one interpretation but it's so ancient and has been translated over many times. None of the events can be verified, so you can't use it as evidence. It's not objective. I don't know why that is complicated to understand. Objective evidence is tangible, testable, and the tests can be repeated over and over with the same results. That why we understand genetic mutations now, and also why we have observed natural selection in action.

Now I don't know how you can dismiss so many other things that tell you beyond a doubt that your wrong, but you are.

I haven't dismissed interventionism. What I HAVE dismissed, is your pitiful anti-evolution argument, that you STILL haven't backed up with any facts at all yet. You haven't even referred to the evidence once. You just pretend it's not there.

You don't even know. I do lean toward alien visitation in the past, believe it or not, but it hasn't been proven and again, it's one interpretation of the statues and writings of the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and other old cultures. It's a belief, just like creationism. It's not a science. Evolution is, and my argument stands until you can address the evidence and explain the methods behind your madness.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-11-2012 @ 08:12 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by Barcs

You still haven't countered my evidence, you are still playing word games. Address the actual evidence. Prove me wrong.

In which instance?

The Origin of Species is a scientific book based on facts, which is not the case with interventionismism. You never even gave a solid reason or proof to discredit the weblinks I posted, just that you do

True, but there are no books that claim to have observed a species evolving into another species.

A bunch of ancient scrolls found in a cave don't constitute as historical documents, and they aren't the same as scientific experimentation.

The problem with that statement is that science doesn't know everything, and theorys have been proven wrong as well. The best thing to do is to accept the past for what it is, and learn from it. When we decide to not learn from the past, like your choosing, your never going to learn anything.

WHERE?

Well I couldn't possibly repeat it all in this box, it was mountains of information. But some things to remember was the ezekiel chapter showing god coming down in a space ship. Confirmed understanding by the bible also claiming that earth is not our home, in hebrews chapter. Hebrews also eludes that we are of an intelligent design. As well as the bible talking about aliens and other planets.

Also Pye believes in intervention, so does von daniken and so does sitchen.
Also Pyes full disclosed findings from all labs that tested the star child can now be seen for any that still think hes a clown.
Star child ( click here )

That you made up on the spot.

Target food was the best term I could come up with for identifying an observed process. Hey someone had to make up evolution at some point.

That have never been verified in a lab or presented to any scientist

Well Pye is not a scientist, he has all of this taught to him by a scientist that works with DNA.

The bible doesn't mention aliens. It's difficult to interpret or even know for sure who wrote the stories and whether or not they happened literally as described. Believing intervention is merely one interpretation but it's so ancient and has been translated over many times. None of the events can be verified, so you can't use it as evidence. It's not objective. I don't know why that is complicated to understand. Objective evidence is tangible, testable, and the tests can be repeated over and over with the same results. That why we understand genetic mutations now, and also why we have observed natural selection in action.

Well I don't know of anything else that flys around in space crafts

. The actuall word aliens is actually in the bible.

The Bible has a great deal to say about Alien Visitors. It speaks of their existence in many places, and specifically mentions their alliance with Satan. It is my intention to clarify some of these scriptures so that this up and coming deception will be forewarned. Scripture clearly identified this grand deception long ago. I am simply highlighting those ancient prophesies.

Aliens in the bible

I haven't dismissed interventionism. What I HAVE dismissed, is your pitiful anti-evolution argument, that you STILL haven't backed up with any facts at all yet. You haven't even referred to the evidence once. You just pretend it's not there.

I have not been able to read every word of every link that everyone sent me too. One of the absurd sides of evolution is to force mountains of theory upon somone to try to give it more credibility. But even in those cases I'm usually finding where it's clear that it's just a hypothesis, or that the important parts have been assumed. Like assuming a species will evolve based on changes. There is simply no proof, its specuation.

You don't even know. I do lean toward alien visitation in the past, believe it or not, but it hasn't been proven and again, it's one interpretation of the statues and writings of the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and other old cultures. It's a belief, just like creationism. It's not a science. Evolution is, and my argument stands until you can address the evidence and explain the methods behind your madness

I noticed a serious problem with the first three links I was ever sent to. It was clear that evolution is nothing more than an assumption. Maybe its because I can see the big picture where most can't, I don't know, all I know is what I get from it, is that it's a made up theory, and most of it is a hypothesis. There are some facts about it, but that doesn't complete it how its being assumed.

reply posted on 28-11-2012 @ 07:38 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

Toothy, look up Richard Lenski at the University of Wisconsin and check out the extremely well-done experiment he and his students did with E. coli. IMO it's one of the best-designed and executed experiments ever done.

If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Well I found the wiki on him...

lenski wiki

One of the things I have to point out is how is claiming that repeatable changes in seperate populations occured in his testing, which is a clear indication to me that the subjects are being exposed to something they didn't know about. Of course it could be anything, as in the case of ADHD that I keep pointing to.

The bacteria never changed into another organisim but an assumption was made that because some changes were found, it was on its way to eventually become something else, not E Coli bacteria.

There has never been any proof that a species evolves into another species, but an assumption is always made that because there are changes found, that its on its way to doing so. It is perhaps the biggest load of crap when it comes to evolution. Changes don't prove macroevolution, but is sure is assumed.

Just like in the example of the kodiac bear mating with the polar bear, and creating a new offspring, you started with bears, and you ended up with bears. As with the E Coli, you started with Ecoli and ended with EColi.

We just never seem to find that instant where a species is no longer that species, hasn't that ever made you wonder? With so much evolution going on right under our noses, you would think we would be able to prove that it's happening, but we can't, all we can prove is there are changes. But changes don't prove evolution, yet all changes are assumed to be evolution. These are the types of problems that occur when people start making assumptions, and when others start accepting those assumptions as proof. They are not proof, they are only speculation.

These changes can be from so many things, they can be from radiation in the air, sickness in the air, there are so many things it's almost impossible to narrow down what is causing what to change. These changes are not part of any process like claimed by evolutionists, and to admit so, strongly suggests intelligent programming of some sort.

If evolution is capable of rendering over a billion species, then by all definition, it is a creator, there is no way you can side step that fact. A process could be a creator, it doesn't have to be a god like we are all taught. And anything that has made over a billion species didn't do so by accident, it's clear there is an agenda behind it all.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read anything on it? If you did, you didn't understand a single word of what you were reading.

reply posted on 28-11-2012 @ 01:58 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by HappyBunny

Of course I read it, how else would you think I would be able to comment about it?

reply posted on 29-11-2012 @ 08:55 AM by Barcs

reply to post by itsthetooth

Both links you posted are unproven. Aliens in the bible link is subjective, based on interpretation and nothing more. You still haven't addressed one single piece of evidence behind evolution. Any day now would be nice instead of just dismissing them because you say so. Go to the talk origins links and go to each sub section and tell me what you don't agree with and why. If you REALLY think that evolution is some made up science, THEN PROVE IT. Talk is cheap. You need evidence.

edit on 29-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2012 @ 09:00 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

Of course I read it, how else would you think I would be able to comment about it?

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made such uninformed and uneducated comments, Toothy.

reply posted on 29-11-2012 @ 01:58 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by Barcs

Both links you posted are unproven. Aliens in the bible link is subjective, based on interpretation and nothing more. You still haven't addressed one single piece of evidence behind evolution. Any day now would be nice instead of just dismissing them because you say so. Go to the talk origins links and go to each sub section and tell me what you don't agree with and why. If you REALLY think that evolution is some made up science, THEN PROVE IT. Talk is cheap. You need evidence

The interpretation of the word aliens is backed up by the fact that UFO's are also mentioned in the bible, and other planets, and the phrase, that earth is not our home. I don't think it could be any clearer.

Most of the reasons I dismiss parts of evolution is because there is no proof. No on has ever witnessed anything evolving into another species, much less have they been able to conclusivly prove it has happend. You can make all the assumptions you want, but there is no proof that undoubtably proves species evolve into another species, its all speculation.

I don't care for the hypothesis parts of it. The changes that are witnessed are also in question. Untill they are able to identify what exactly is causing the changes, there will remain this myth that it's evolution at work. Since no one has identified these changes, its just easy to claim they are evolution at work. I would want proof before I believe that.

reply posted on 29-11-2012 @ 01:59 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by HappyBunny

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made such uninformed and uneducated comments, Toothy.

Just because I read it doesn't mean I'm going to make the same assumptions you are.

reply posted on 29-11-2012 @ 07:11 PM by Barcs

reply to post by itsthetooth

So basically, you don't feel like reading the links and just decide to assume they are all wrong and do not prove evolution.

Come on, now. I presented the evidence that proves evolution. We HAVE witnessed one species change into another. You just keep repeating lie after lie. Address the evidence or find another thread to post in. Nobody cares about personal opinion. This is about fact.

The interpretation of the word aliens is backed up by the fact that UFO's are also mentioned in the bible, and other planets, and the phrase, that earth is not our home. I don't think it could be any clearer.

UFOs are not mentioned in the bible. It's another interpretation of the text. Where does the bible mention other planets or say the earth is not our home? Give me exact quotes.

edit on 29-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2012 @ 08:20 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by Barcs

So basically, you don't feel like reading the links and just decide to assume they are all wrong and do not prove evolution. Come on, now. I presented the evidence that proves evolution. We HAVE witnessed one species change into another. You just keep repeating lie after lie. Address the evidence or find another thread to post in. Nobody cares about personal opinion. This is about fact.

I read the links, and not one ever claimed to know what the reason was for the changes, just that a brilliant guess that it's evolution must be the case.

reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So basically, you don't feel like reading the links and just decide to assume they are all wrong and do not prove evolution. Come on, now. I presented the evidence that proves evolution. We HAVE witnessed one species change into another. You just keep repeating lie after lie. Address the evidence or find another thread to post in. Nobody cares about personal opinion. This is about fact.

The interpretation of the word aliens is backed up by the fact that UFO's are also mentioned in the bible, and other planets, and the phrase, that earth is not our home. I don't think it could be any clearer.

UFOs are not mentioned in the bible. It's another interpretation of the text. Where does the bible mention other planets or say the earth is not our home? Give me exact quotes.

OMG, Look at how far behind you have fallen.

Ezekiel chapter ufo
Exodus ufo
Genesis 6 & Nephilim 101 more ufos in the bible
The Lord Yhovah
More about UFO's in the bible / ezekiel and canaan
More Ezekiel
More Ezekiel
UFO's in the bible video *
UFOs in the Bible Ancient Alien Technology video*
What Does the Bible Say About UFOs?

Now about other planets, or other worlds.

Other planets
Exodus, god admits there are other gods
There is a passage that speaks directly about aliens and other planets, and I can't remember where.

Earth is not our home

Hebrews
This same section talks about us being equipped with intelligent design.

OUR HOME IS HEAVEN NOT EARTH
this isn't our home.
Earth Is Not Our Home," by Ruth Bell Graham
This World Is Not My Home

What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets?
other life?

The only assumption I'm making in all of this is that aliens pilot UFO's.

Any questions

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 03:32 PM by iterationzero

reply to post by itsthetooth

What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets?
other life??

More proof of itsthetooth's complete lack of reading comprehension skills. What does the link he posted say the Bible says about intelligent life on other planets? Here's a direct quote:

The Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe. Although our all-powerful God could have created such life had He desired, it seems rather obvious from Scripture that He did not.

Perhaps next time itsthetooth should actually read and understand what he's attempting to use to support his arguments and make sure that the source does, rather than just hope that it does based on the title.

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 04:40 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by iterationzero

More proof of itsthetooth's complete lack of reading comprehension skills. What does the link he posted say the Bible says about intelligent life on other planets? Here's a direct quote:

Then you must have skipped over exodus where God says he is a jelious god, and wants to be our only god.

Perhaps next time itsthetooth should actually read and understand what he's attempting to use to support his arguments and make sure that the source does, rather than just hope that it does based on the title.

Some links did not agree with the understanding, There was probably something else of importance that you missed over.

You are correct, but safe assumptions can be made because of the fact that there are UFO's clearly in the bible, Someone has to pilot those, and wouldn't they also have a planet to live on.

Seriously its common sense. I had to go back and read this one, I think you missed the total point. Just because they aren't directly teaching that there is other life, doesn't mean there isn't any. The bible was supposed to be about us, and our dealings with god, not other life abound.

edit on 30-11-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 04:49 PM by Connector

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth

What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets?
other life??

More proof of itsthetooth's complete lack of reading comprehension skills. What does the link he posted say the Bible says about intelligent life on other planets? Here's a direct quote:

The Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe. Although our all-powerful God could have created such life had He desired, it seems rather obvious from Scripture that He did not.

Perhaps next time itsthetooth should actually read and understand what he's attempting to use to support his arguments and make sure that the source does, rather than just hope that it does based on the title.

lol....that was the first link I clicked and was just about to post the same point, yet again. His reply doesn't even make sense........

ahhhh....now I see he edited his original reply to try and be more coherent whilst twisting his claim. lulz

edit on 30-11-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 05:22 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by Connector

lol....that was the first link I clicked and was just about to post the same point, yet again. His reply doesn't even make sense........

ahhhh....now I see he edited his original reply to try and be more coherent whilst twisting his claim. lulz

Seriously?

How dense can you be?

I posted that link to show why they don't directly teach about other life. But still they do. Did you miss the other 17 links? The ones that make it oh so obvious? You evolutionists are all the same, you yearn for the chance to be right rather than looking at the facts in front of your face.

edit on 30-11-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 05:41 PM by TheMythLives

reply to post by addygrace

Knowing that is the case, how can the anus evolve in different organisms, in different times, and in different sequential selection events?

A species evolutionary tract and genetics are not limited to just one species. For instance, we all came from one cell billions of years ago and thus, through genetic inference, drift, convergence, etc; genetic sequences occur across species. It is also the reason why we share DNA with fish, chimps, sea sponges, banana's, etc. In fact, our DNA is shared with every single life form that we know of. This is why we can make vaccines from goats; test on rats for genetic therapies, and so much more. Pretty cool right!

Is this happening in other areas of biology? If so, can there be some hidden property causing all of these coincidences?

It is not coincidences. Biology incorporates all areas of biology; there is no need to make a distinction. Evolution does NOT mean progress, it simply means change. There is no hidden property, but the property in front of all us all the time.. Nature.

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 05:24 AM by iterationzero

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then you must have skipped over exodus where God says he is a jelious god, and wants to be our only god.

That doesn't mean that there were other gods, just that other gods were being worshipped. The early Semitic people were not monotheistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Seriously its common sense. I had to go back and read this one, I think you missed the total point. Just because they aren't directly teaching that there is other life, doesn't mean there isn't any. The bible was supposed to be about us, and our dealings with god, not other life abound.

You can't have it both ways. Either the sources you linked support your case or they don't. The link of yours that I quoted from makes it clear that "the Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe". Your own link says that the Bible makes no mention of intelligent life anywhere other than Earth i.e. the Bible makes no mention of aliens.

I can always pick out one of your other links and point out how it is similarly flawed in its reasoning. Let's play with this one:

DID GOD MAKE OTHER PLANETS, WORLDS?

In Genesis 2:4 "This is the history of the HEAVENS and the EARTH when they were CREATED, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the HEAVENS!

The above scripture, does not use the word HEAVENS, to describe Gods particular domain, or his Heaven, which Heaven, the word is also used. But in this scripture, according the original Hebrew, HEAVENS HAS THIS MEANING: celestial bodies (which in todays terminology, means stars, planets, asteroids, moons, etc.) THERE YOU HAVE IT!

Except, there you don't have it. Anyone who has spent even five or ten minutes investigating the language used in the Bible would know that the phrase "the heavens and the Earth" is an idiomatic expression that means "everything". The author of your link is suggesting that people who unearth our culture and writings after a couple of millennia should draw the conclusion that cats and dogs literally fall from the sky because people wrote about how it "rained cats and dogs".

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 10:53 AM by itsthetooth

reply to post by iterationzero

That doesn't mean that there were other gods, just that other gods were being worshipped. The early Semitic people were not monotheistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Thats only from the perspective that you don't believe in any of it. So what are you saying, people were worshiping gods that didn't exist? Seriously?

You can't have it both ways. Either the sources you linked support your case or they don't. The link of yours that I quoted from makes it clear that "the Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe". Your own link says that the Bible makes no mention of intelligent life anywhere other than Earth i.e. the Bible makes no mention of aliens.

True, but I included that link to show you that they were just omitting that information as they had allready proven them in other ways. You have to extrapolate a little bit here, if there are space crafts, they obviously have to be manned by somone, most likely aliens. If there are aliens they most likely have some place to live, like other planets. It's just common sense.

Except, there you don't have it. Anyone who has spent even five or ten minutes investigating the language used in the Bible would know that the phrase "the heavens and the Earth" is an idiomatic expression that means "everything". The author of your link is suggesting that people who unearth our culture and writings after a couple of millennia should draw the conclusion that cats and dogs literally fall from the sky because people wrote about how it "rained cats and dogs"

I think that it possibly has more than one meaning in this case, just like we have some words today that work the same way.
Bass can be a fish, but it can also be a range of sound. Both heaven and heavens are used in the bible. The phrase raining cats and dogs would apply if they had actually ever used it back then, but they didn't. As an example, I have been taking the literal sense of words in the bible. When I have run into many possibility meanings of words, I would go back and read more to see what proves the meaning of the term. Obviously there are UFO's, again you need aliens to pilot them, which also means they most likely have other planets to live on. There were just to many things pointing to this being accurate, and in the beginning it had nothing to do with what I wanted to believe, when I first looked into this, I was in disbelief.

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 11:46 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Most of the reasons I dismiss parts of evolution is because there is no proof. No on has ever witnessed anything evolving into another species, much less have they been able to conclusivly prove it has happend. You can make all the assumptions you want, but there is no proof that undoubtably proves species evolve into another species, its all speculation.

BS. The evidence for the common descent of all organisms (evolution) is undeniable. The problem is you. You're a close-minded liar (the discoverer of an arcane virus lol) who cannot study the evidence objectively. That's all. Have a nice weekend.

p.s. The one thing we'll never see you or any other creationist/new age alien ID bs believer debunk is this.

edit on 1-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)