Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 17
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You continue to miss the point that I don't have to -- what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As soon as you can bring some objective evidence to the discussion about the "blue laminate" that "in the shape of the holy cross", I'll be more than happy to take a look at it.
Me too.




Correct, because you have presented no corroborating evidence to support your interpretation of the Bible.
There is mountains of evidence. There is the bible, Target food, findings in our own DNA and many other factors.




What is Pye's criteria for claiming that we have "more than our fair share of defects"?
You should know if you watched his human genetics video. He believes that the defects are a direct result of the human species being engineered.




I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I'm asking you to provide objective evidence to support your claims. You either can not or will not present that evidence
Then you need to provide evidence that explains why my evidence if false, which you have also failed to do.




For someone who claims to have studied science and even discovered an "arcane virus", you are woefully ignorant of how science works.
Quite the opposite. You are the one believing in a theory, that is based on assumptions. No one has ever witnessed let alone proven that species eventually evolves into another species, its assumed to happen. My findings are all backed up by the bible, our current food situation, and DNA findings from Pye.




I am not making the claim, you are. You have to provide evidence to support that claim. You still have not done so.
Just because you don't believe the claims, does not prove them wrong. The bible is not a false document just because you claim it to be. What, did you single handedly disprove the bible?




It's only not convincing to you.
Not all scientists agree with you, so it looks like you have a problem there.




I'm not the one making claims, therefore I don't have to provide evidence. You are making the claims, therefor you have to provide the evidence. You have provided no evidence. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Well its true that anyone can claim the evidence to be wrong, but you haven't disproven a single thing I have presented, but your opinion is always welcome.




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You have ultimately done a much better job of summarizing why your entire claim of interventionism can be dismissed than I ever could. You follow this identical tactic whenever you are asked for objective evidence to support your claims:


Me: The "blue laminate" was your smoking gun for your hypothesis of interventionism for months. Every time someone provided you with evidence that some other part of your hypothesis was wrong, you'd retreat to your claims regarding "blue laminate". Even now, you immediately defend the concept in the self-admitted absence of any evidence for it whenever it's brought up. Please, provide your explicit objective evidence for the "blue laminate".

You: Since I'm unable to, are you able to provide your evidence that its incorrect?

Me: You continue to miss the point that I don't have to -- what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As soon as you can bring some objective evidence to the discussion about the "blue laminate" that "in the shape of the holy cross", I'll be more than happy to take a look at it.

You: Me too.

Your claims are made without evidence. Your claims can be dismissed without evidence.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I'm sorry but you haven't presented anything that even slightly proves it to be false. Your the one making the claim that its false, now why and how is that.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

The only reply I'm interested in is the one where you present actual objective evidence for your claims, as opposed to your misinterpretations of what's actually there or your statement that your claims are beyond the realm of evidence because they are "supernatural".



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Well like you allready said, you have proven the blue laminate to be false or rather that its false from the lack of anything that I wasn't able to produce.

And like I said it would be in your best interest to pursue the blue laminate issue since it seems to be the only thing you have a fair argument against.
edit on 23-12-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You're pretending that the "blue laminate" is the only one of your claims you've done this same thing with. When asked for evidence that corroborates your interpretation of events in the Bible, you are unable to do so and retreat to your argument of "it must be true because it hasn't been proven wrong". You're still missing the point that you need to provide evidence when making a positive claim.

You took an interesting turn in trying to claim that I was making a positive claim that the Bible is false; I'm not -- I'm simply stating that you have provided no objective evidence to warrant that anyone accept your interpretation of events in the Bible. When pressed for evidence, you admit that it doesn't exist by try and justify that lack of evidence by claiming that it's "supernatural". You ultimately take the same route whenever you are pressed on your interventionist religion.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Honestly man,give up cos you're just bashing your head against a brick wall n it just gives you a sore head.

How can you disprove statements that have only assertions to back them up.With no supporting evidence to prove or disprove then you can't demonstrate the truth.

You know that,I know that but...,

********************************

And tooth,I hope one day you will sit down and actually research into this subject with no preconcieved preferences,an open mind and completely objectively.

I've heard all the fashionable,new age remarks about mainstream science blatantly covering up the truth and forcing evolution on the masses for some nefarious reason that I can't fathom.I've even been called a sheep and gullable for accepting evolution.

Well the point is tooth,science is fundementally based on objective,independant observations,facts on their own merits.

Everything from the connections,results,
ideas and hypothesis are derived from those objective observations and if they happen to support the mainstream so be it,that's where the facts have lead.



What you do tooth,either deliberately or unknowingly is begin witg your belief and believe the facts you think support that belief whilst dismissing facts or evidence that goes against your view.

If you're aware of that is your belief so important you have to knowingly cherry pick ideas that have no actual evidence to support them and dismiss proven facts when in the way.That approach is clearly dishonest and bankrupt.

If you're not aware then go back and look right through the 20 pages of this thread.

If you truly believe in Interventionism then that's up to you but if you're going to tell people you're right,that evolution doesnt hold water and state it openly then prove it.

Not by bringing up the bible,quoting pye or saying target foods.Produce evidence,a few verifiable facts that can actually be scrutinised.Proven or disproven.

The bible can say whatever anyone wants it to and has done for 2000 years,,it's no more verifiable than hearsay let alone evidence.

Pye is,being favourable,questionable as an authority on this subject and a maverick like that has to make sure his ideas are fully proven before expecting to be taken seriously.

Target foods being proof of intervention only works if intervention is fact so clearly isnt evidence.

Produce actual evidence we can study



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Honestly man,give up cos you're just bashing your head against a brick wall n it just gives you a sore head.

Thanks for the kind words, fastbob. Connector made a similar point about a month ago. This really isn't to try and educate itsthetooth -- I think he's so far down the rabbit hole that there's no hope for him at this point -- but to give a better picture of just how misguided he is to anyone who happens to be lurking about on these forums. I read Von Daniken and Sitchin when I was younger and know how easy it is to be swayed by the pretty use of "maybe" and "perhaps" and "could have" rather than be willing to say "I don't know… let's keep searching for the truth."


How can you disprove statements that have only assertions to back them up.With no supporting evidence to prove or disprove then you can't demonstrate the truth.

Exactly my point -- all itsthetooth does is make assertions without evidence, so we have to stop treating them as something to be taken with the same weight as assertions made with evidence. I'll be more than happy to examine any evidence he brings to the table, if and when he finally does.


You know that,I know that but…

…itsthetooth, who claims to have been in a postgraduate science program and "discovered and arcane virus", does not seem to know that. It's boggling that someone who claims to have been involved in science for as long as he claims to have been wouldn't even know how science really works.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   


…itsthetooth, who claims to have been in a postgraduate science program and "discovered and arcane virus", does not seem to know that. It's boggling that someone who claims to have been involved in science for as long as he claims to have been wouldn't even know how science really works.


Seriously !!!

Must be another claim with no evidence to support it.

I actually had this picture in my mind of some 15 year old kid who'd stumbled on a theory,bought it hook,line,sinker and copy of the angling times as a form of rebellion against the scientific establishment and won't,won't,won't accept what everyone has told him.

The more you point out the sky is blue,the more he wildly shouts it gold with his fingers in his ears



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


And thats because there are parts of the bible that are not bound to the limitations of objective evidence. Are you sure your understanding the term supernatural, we keep having to revisit this?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by fastbob72
 


The patterns that exist that prove Target Food, are in all diets.

I have allready disproven evolution. There is not a single soul that has witnessed evolution.
There is speculation that changes are in fact all part of one process called evolution, but there is no proof.
There is speculation that ALL changes ever found are also part of this evolution but that was also disproven by the whole concept of ADHD.
There is also speculation that these found changes can amount to larger changes which can eventually lead to a species changing its species, again with no proof.
There is nothing more than a lot of specualtion.

Now on the side of intervention, we have documentation telling us that its happened. We have no historical documentation that proves evolution.

Why do you simply dissmiss such history with no proof?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Thanks for the kind words, fastbob. Connector made a similar point about a month ago. This really isn't to try and educate itsthetooth -- I think he's so far down the rabbit hole that there's no hope for him at this point -- but to give a better picture of just how misguided he is to anyone who happens to be lurking about on these forums. I read Von Daniken and Sitchin when I was younger and know how easy it is to be swayed by the pretty use of "maybe" and "perhaps" and "could have" rather than be willing to say "I don't know… let's keep searching for the truth.
Maybe and perhaps is all I have gotten out of the evolution sites, whats the difference.




Exactly my point -- all itsthetooth does is make assertions without evidence, so we have to stop treating them as something to be taken with the same weight as assertions made with evidence. I'll be more than happy to examine any evidence he brings to the table, if and when he finally does.
Aside from the blue laminate, each point I have ever claimed has been backed up by one, sometimes multiple things that prove it.




…itsthetooth, who claims to have been in a postgraduate science program
I never claimed to be in a postgraduate program.




and "discovered and arcane virus", does not seem to know that. It's boggling that someone who claims to have been involved in science for as long as he claims to have been wouldn't even know how science really works.
Quite the opposite, it is the practice of evolutionists to accept assumptions while no one has witnessed a species changing. No one has even ever proven that the changes in question actually are motivate to change the species itself.

Way to many assumptions. I might not know everything there is to know about science, but In my opinion this isn't the way it's handeled.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by fastbob72
 





Seriously !!!

Must be another claim with no evidence to support it.

I actually had this picture in my mind of some 15 year old kid who'd stumbled on a theory,bought it hook,line,sinker and copy of the angling times as a form of rebellion against the scientific establishment and won't,won't,won't accept what everyone has told him.

The more you point out the sky is blue,the more he wildly shouts it gold with his fingers in his ears

That would be because I'm not worried about people trying to tell me that evolution is real, I haven't been presented with anything that hasn't said that it's just an assumable theory. That doesn't prove it to me. It my sit well with other people but I don't buy into things without some sort of proof.





posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Maybe and perhaps is all I have gotten out of the evolution sites, whats the difference.

This is about the sources you've tried to use to support your claims, not about the claims made by evolution. You cite authors like Von Daniken and Lewis who avoid providing evidence for their claims by using those words. You claim to have "proof" of interventionism, but your sources never provide it. Further, according to you, "evolutionists" assume things and state them as fact, so how could it be that "evolution sites" use words like "maybe" and "perhaps"?


Aside from the blue laminate, each point I have ever claimed has been backed up by one, sometimes multiple things that prove it.

It's obvious to anyone reading this thread that you've retreated to the same argument of "my claims are beyond evidence because they are supernatural" that you always do. This isn't limited to your lack of evidence for "blue laminate".


I never claimed to be in a postgraduate program.

So at what research institute did you discover your "arcane virus"?


Quite the opposite, it is the practice of evolutionists to accept assumptions while no one has witnessed a species changing. No one has even ever proven that the changes in question actually are motivate to change the species itself.

You have been provided with evidence of speciation multiple times.


Way to many assumptions. I might not know everything there is to know about science,

That is abundantly clear.


but In my opinion this isn't the way it's handled.

Given that you keep trying to play the "I'm correct until shown otherwise" card in the complete absence of evidence for your claims, you know very little about the "way it's handled".



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





This is about the sources you've tried to use to support your claims, not about the claims made by evolution. You cite authors like Von Daniken and Lewis who avoid providing evidence for their claims by using those words. You claim to have "proof" of interventionism, but your sources never provide it. Further, according to you, "evolutionists" assume things and state them as fact, so how could it be that "evolution sites" use words like "maybe" and "perhaps"?
Maybe not specifically but the same definition is all I ever found in all the links I have been sent to.
You have never disproven the bible since these are the same sources as von daniken, I don't see how you can claim them to be wrong with no proof. The reason why it may not be obvious that intervention exists in the bible is because when someone is victimized and the perpetrator takes steps to keep this crime unknown, you have to be smart enough to follow the facts to figure this out.
But I never accused you of being smart enough to know this.




It's obvious to anyone reading this thread that you've retreated to the same argument of "my claims are beyond evidence because they are supernatural" that you always do. This isn't limited to your lack of evidence for "blue laminate".
Nope, and the blue laminate is not supernatural either, so there should be evidence.

That doesn't however disprove any of my other claims.




So at what research institute did you discover your "arcane virus"?
It started in a radio station and was observed over the course of 20 years. It's a virus that infects tape decks, and can be spread through both playing magnetic tapes as well as through audio copys.




You have been provided with evidence of speciation multiple times.
Speciation is far from proof that I share a common ancestor with apes. You have to first of all assume that the changes will continue to mount, and not be the same changes over and over, then you have to assume that the changes will cause enough change to become another species which has never been proven. Like I said no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.




Given that you keep trying to play the "I'm correct until shown otherwise" card in the complete absence of evidence for your claims, you know very little about the "way it's handled".
And you honestly think that making assumptions that are unfounded with changes in evolution is the correct way?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You have never disproven the bible since these are the same sources as von daniken, I don't see how you can claim them to be wrong with no proof.

I'm not claiming the Bible -- and therefore Von Daniken, which is funny because you've gone to great lengths in previous posts to claim they are independent sources -- is wrong. I don't need to claim anything. You are making positive claims about the Bible. You need to provide some kind of corroborating evidence. You have failed to do so, stating that the Bible is beyond objective evidence because it is "supernatural". What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


But I never accused you of being smart enough to know this.

Given your lack of understanding of the basics of science in general and biology, chemistry, history, archaeology, etc., I take this as a compliment coming from you.


That doesn't however disprove any of my other claims.

There's nothing to disprove because you provide no evidence for your claims.


It started in a radio station and was observed over the course of 20 years. It's a virus that infects tape decks, and can be spread through both playing magnetic tapes as well as through audio copys.

This speaks for itself.


Speciation is far from proof that I share a common ancestor with apes. You have to first of all assume that the changes will continue to mount, and not be the same changes over and over, then you have to assume that the changes will cause enough change to become another species which has never been proven. Like I said no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

You have been provided with evidence for observable instances of speciation multiple times.


And you honestly think that making assumptions that are unfounded with changes in evolution is the correct way?

First, you've failed to falsify modern evolutionary synthesis in any way, shape, or form. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you have -- that doesn't automatically mean that your interventionist religion is correct. You have to provide objective evidence for each and every one of your claims. You have failed to do this at any point for any of your claims.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Exactly tooth,how many times DO we have to keep going over this.Observeing that animals have a preferred diet prooves what ??

That they have a diet that suits them.In the wild the mother in the vast majority of mammals and birds feeds her young while they develop.That is how they when they're old enough to feed themselves they know what to eat.It's very straight forward.

If you find that hard so hard to except why do animals that are hand reared by humans have to shown what to eat,why do they act in everyway like they believe the person that reared them is their mother.

And before you come back by saying their domesticated i'm talking about animals born in the wild that's mothers abandoned them or been killed and somebody has found either rearing them themselves or brought to a zoo or the RSPCA.These animals are born wild and are NOT or never will be domesticated.


Why do they need to be either put in with their own kind to develop their natural instincts if they were know from birth what to eat and how to fly,hunt or whatever.

Why do the young in that's born in the wild starve or get eaten if their mother is killed before she can teach and nurture them ??

Thn obvious and logical answer is that mammals and birds arent born knowing what to eat they need to be shown.

Like I said the simple fact that in the wild young that are abandoned too early starve exactly because they don't know what to eat prooves that.

Yet everytime you insist no they're born magically knowing their 'target' food even though it's clearly demonstrable that they don't know and then taking this magic theory of target foods and claiming it disproves evolution and at the same time is definitiue evidence we're from another planet.

Then for an encore you state that this is all written in the bible,the bible's all true but it can't be proven as it's supernatural.Eh ??

One yes I'm very aware what supernatural means which means if you want to invoke it as proof then it requires a higher degree of evidence due to it's very nature.

And how is the bible supernature.It's paper,ink and words.So I say yet again where in the bible does it say we come from another planet,that something engineered our DNA deliberately.It's written and black and white it should be easy to find.

Btw,god told me we evolved from stinging nettles and we can fly,god IS supernatural so I don't need proof.It IS fact,god told me.Argument won !!!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I'm not claiming the Bible -- and therefore Von Daniken, which is funny because you've gone to great lengths in previous posts to claim they are independent sources
Well where you do you think Von daniken gets his ideas from? It's all straight from out of the bible.




is wrong. I don't need to claim anything. You are making positive claims about the Bible. You need to provide some kind of corroborating evidence. You have failed to do so, stating that the Bible is beyond objective evidence because it is "supernatural". What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There are to many people involved in the making of the bible for it to be false.

There are to many proven locations, as well as the tablets from the 10 commandments being found.




Given your lack of understanding of the basics of science in general and biology, chemistry, history, archaeology, etc., I take this as a compliment coming from you.
What you meant to say is that I don't have an imagination like you do which is required to believe in evolution.

Your dismissing a historical document with no logical reason. The only excuses I have heard from you at this point, is that people were perhaps on drugs, with no basis for believing that. Or that the book was based on fantasy, again with no basis for believing that.




There's nothing to disprove because you provide no evidence for your claims.
Just because you choose to believe that the bible is not evidence, or that findings in our own dna is not evidence, does not make it so.




You have been provided with evidence for observable instances of speciation multiple times.
And its been clearly explained to you mulitple times that in each of these studies, they started and ended up with the same species each time. Never in history has a species changed species. The closest they even got to this was that the species stopped breeding with the original species. But this isn't proof that it changed into another species, it's only proof that it stopped breeding.




First, you've failed to falsify modern evolutionary synthesis in any way, shape, or form. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you have -- that doesn't automatically mean that your interventionist religion is correct. You have to provide objective evidence for each and every one of your claims. You have failed to do this at any point for any of your claims.
It's evident that either you lack of comprehension, or the inability to learn has made this difficult for you. It could even be because you are brainwashed by evolution.

Evolution has no basis for facts. There is nothing about evolution that proves we have evolved, there is however much speculation thats nots proven. Intervention is hard to prove because it happened so long ago, however we do have proof in our very own genes that tampering has occured in our genetics.

Now I know, you have an excuse for this as well, more feeble claims made about how evolution did this, but where is the proof? There is no proof that evolution is to blame for our genetic differences, much less does it explain the amount of differences. There is no proof that all of these changes observed are all bound to one process known as evolution. In fact I proved that wrong with the genetic changes found in ADHD. And I ask you again, do you honestly believe that a mother smoking with a newborn can alter evolutionary changes, because its happening right now.

There is an assumption made that observed changes in life are all part of a process known as evolution, but where is the proof? There is an assumption made that anytime enough changes occur, it's possible that the species has changed into another species. This is verified by the fact that they no longer breed together, but again thats not proof, where is the proof? My dad divorced my mom when I was young and they stopped mating, does that mean one of them changed species?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by fastbob72
 





Exactly tooth,how many times DO we have to keep going over this.Observeing that animals have a preferred diet prooves what ??
Animals having a prefered diet proves that they are pre programmed to know what food they are suppose to be eating. When that food is not available you see them go into phase one, phase two, and phase three of hunger.




That they have a diet that suits them.In the wild the mother in the vast majority of mammals and birds feeds her young while they develop.That is how they when they're old enough to feed themselves they know what to eat.It's very straight forward.
It is true that on a rare occasion, a parent actually has something to do with teaching the young what to eat. But if you look into this a little more, you will see that its usually not the case. So the question remains, how do they know what to eat? How is it they also seem to know what not to eat.




If you find that hard so hard to except why do animals that are hand reared by humans have to shown what to eat,why do they act in everyway like they believe the person that reared them is their mother.
Dont confuse the ability to learn with whats supposed to be correct. That same person could hand feed a bird poop, and as far as the bird would know its food.




And before you come back by saying their domesticated i'm talking about animals born in the wild that's mothers abandoned them or been killed and somebody has found either rearing them themselves or brought to a zoo or the RSPCA.These animals are born wild and are NOT or never will be domesticated.
If humans feed them.... they are domesticated.




Why do they need to be either put in with their own kind to develop their natural instincts if they were know from birth what to eat and how to fly,hunt or whatever.
Again, your confusing the ability to learn, with instinct. Instinct would require no teaching, and no learning, while the ability to learn would. A species can be taught to eat out of the zone of instinct, that doesn't mean it was the intended way.




Why do the young in that's born in the wild starve or get eaten if their mother is killed before she can teach and nurture them ??
Well because their target food is not available, which would work on instinct, and the mother is killed because our planet is over populated with species from many other planets causing her to be in a compramised position as she is not an apex preditor.




Thn obvious and logical answer is that mammals and birds arent born knowing what to eat they need to be shown.
When their target food is not available, you would be correct.




Like I said the simple fact that in the wild young that are abandoned too early starve exactly because they don't know what to eat prooves that.

I see what the problem is here, your making the same assumption that all scientists are also making that first off, all of the species that are here, are from here, and belong here. They don't.




Yet everytime you insist no they're born magically knowing their 'target' food even though it's clearly demonstrable that they don't know and then taking this magic theory of target foods and claiming it disproves evolution and at the same time is definitiue evidence we're from another planet.
The evidence is in the multiple times, and many different ways the bible tells us that earth is not our home. In addition we have physical evidence in our DNA that shows our DNA to be tampered with in major ways.




Then for an encore you state that this is all written in the bible,the bible's all true but it can't be proven as it's supernatural.Eh ??
Some, but not all of the things in the bible are supernatural events.




One yes I'm very aware what supernatural means which means if you want to invoke it as proof then it requires a higher degree of evidence due to it's very nature.
It's more that its not bound to the limitations or understanding of our science, therefore its hard to enter it as objective evidence, but in no way does that mean its not real.




And how is the bible supernature.It's paper,ink and words.So I say yet again where in the bible does it say we come from another planet,that something engineered our DNA deliberately.It's written and black and white it should be easy to find.
I think it says it many time, if you know where to look, and how to read it. Hebrews says in black and white that earth is not our home. Itero believes it to mean we don't own the earth, but even then hes admitting that earth is still not our home.




Btw,god told me we evolved from stinging nettles and we can fly,god IS supernatural so I don't need proo



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fastbob72
 





Btw,god told me we evolved from stinging nettles and we can fly,god IS supernatural so I don't need proof.It IS fact,god told me.Argument won !!!
I don't believe in imaginary friends.





top topics
 
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join