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.

 

Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
How do you evolutionists explain all the symbiotic relationships necessary for life? You all teach that the world is in a delicate balance, yet in the beginning it was a most inhospitable world the way you all present it. How did the plants evolve and the animals over millions of years when they need each other? Without the animals the plants don't get the CO2 they need and without the plants the animals don't get the Oxygen they need.

Then look at the plants that are wholly dependent on a particular insect to propagate them. How did they last until that animal came along and if that plant is that animal's sole food source how did the animal survive without that plant?

How about the bacteria needed for healthy digestion? How did animals including humans live if that bacteria did not exist and become what we needed?

How about the animals that have to have a parasite inside them to live? What did they do before that symbiotic relationship existed? It is all in perfect balance and makes life work and yet you want me to believe it all happened by chance against astronomical odds greater than 10 to the 50th power? That in mathematics is an impossibility.

I also will present another argument I made on a different thread, and give you all a crack at it. According to evolution theory that includes natural selection which also believes the strongest survive that over millions of years various animals that came from common ancestors changed. They show videos of a lizard sort of creature crawling up a tree and morphing into a bird. Now, birds have much less dense bones than those ground dwelling lizards.

How is it beneficial for that lizard to lose bone density while it's front legs slowly over millions of years gradually change into a wing? The front limbs are no longer useful for supporting it for running and yet it can't fly. How does this creature survive in it's environment while it continues to develop into a bird? It no longer can use them to run, fight, or dig. It can't fly to get away from predators. So, just how does this work in your model?

It seems to me that the animal would die out before it could change into a bird and thus fly away. It's only natural via the idea of survival of the fittest and natural selection.
edit on 9-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 




How did they last until that animal came along and if that plant is that animal's sole food source how did the animal survive without that plant?

They didn't "last until that animal came along'". They evolved along with that animal because it was advantageous to both of the organisms. The more "cooperation", the better the chances that each would successfully reproduce.

edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by peter vlar
 


What, am I supposed to know the guy ? You can read just the same as I can. Prolly better.

Go ahead and be as shocked as can be. That makes no difference to me.
edit on 9-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


No, I don't expect you to know him personally. I do expect that if you're citing someone in an attempt to prove me wrong that you actually know what you're using as a reference. Or are you just utilizing intellectual dishonesty that you accuse the scientific establishment of engaging in? And why only reply to the last sentence as opposed
to the other salient points I made? is it because you have no redress for them?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


effective communication is the key to teaching people. dismissing questions, refusing to read, listen to, or watch information posed as questions, and variants on that same theme, is not effective communication. galileo had to go thru this same crap with the roman catholic authorities. just take a deep breathe, watch the video in the op, and see if you can answer any of the questions it poses.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Judging by the first two minutes of the video the arguments in it will be nothing I haven't heard before. I used to be a creationist, I was raised that way by my parents and defended creationism for years. I've heard all their arguments before because I used to USE THEM. I read the book of Enoch while I was still in high school.

My time is valuable. We're talking at least two hours to watch the video, plus the time it would take to refute every single claim piece by piece. And then after all that effort Randy would still just cling to his faith like he always does. Trust me, Randy and I have known each other for years here on ATS. Pretty sure the last time I did him a favor I had to stomach a Kent Hovind video and pick it apart.

Like believers in ancient aliens proponents of the Nephilim and other creationist ideas tend to ignore the facts and rely on sensationalism. They will point out a bizarre event in history or a bizarre artifact or piece of ancient art, or these strange looking skulls, and simply reject the mainstream explanations out of hand. All of it amounts to a great big argument from incredulity "I don't believe these are human" or "I can't believe this was skull binding" and, of course, the standard creationist claims of a grand scientific conspiracy. They never back up their claims with any facts and why should they when they are playing to a brainwashed audience that has been reinforced to reject the facts whenever they contradict their faith.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 




How did they last until that animal came along and if that plant is that animal's sole food source how did the animal survive without that plant?

They didn't "last until that animal came along'". They evolved along with that animal because it was advantageous to both of the organisms. The more "cooperation", the better the chances that each would successfully reproduce.

edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


That has to be the silliest thing I've read today. To say that becoming more and more dependant on something increases your chances to survive should look at oil.

Really how absurd a notion.

What happens if that plant or animal dies out? Not a very smart move if u want to continue surviving.

Bees come to mind also.
edit on 9-9-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I know.
Isn't it a pain when people ignore evidence like bones and bone structure so they can cling to their brainwashed ideas.

Its obvious that all those beautiful curves and extra space on some come from the same binding techniques as those squared off ones that look li le a smashed skull.

Obvious is obvious



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


To say that becoming more and more dependant on something increases your chances to survive should look at oil.
What?



What happens if that plant or animal dies out? Not a very smart move if u want to continue surviving.
Right. It's not very "smart". Does that mean God isn't very smart then?

See, the thing is, evolution isn't smart. It just does the best it can with what's available. Sometimes that leads to a dead end. If something kills your symbiote and your existence depends upon it, you're out of luck. Given enough time, something else will come along to fill the niche formerly occupied by you.


edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


I'm not an anthropologist. I wouldn't pretend to know anything about the bone structure of ancient skulls. What I do know is that going "this skull looks strange, let me tie it to my pre-existing supernatural beliefs and ignore all other explanations" is not the answer. Simply declaring that its not human because you think it looks funny is not the answer either.

I'm not going to start speculating on which skulls are human and which might not be and why. I trust those who could gain just as much from overturning the mainstream view as they could from upholding it. Creationists, on the other hand, don't consider the rejection of their beliefs an option. If something groundbreaking that overturns a mainstream idea is found in real science it's a big deal. We're talking funding, Nat Geo specials, etc... but if a creationist suddenly finds evidence that overturns his ideas, it gets ignored or swept under the "all science is a conspiracy" rug. There are people who make their living off of Creationism and so called Creation "Science" but funny thing is that if they suddenly became intellectually honest enough to accept the evidence for evolution that exists all around them they wouldn't be able to suddenly become actual scientists. Which means that they were never experts in any of the subjects they were talking about.

It's just like the ancient astronaut folks, nevermind that the mainstream archaeologists have some good ideas on how they built the pyramids and even know where the stone was quarried from. It must've been aliens!

Arguments from incredulity are not evidence for a specific alternative hypothesis. It's as if they forget they still have to meet a burden of proof and present actual facts to support their conclusion.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


To say that becoming more and more dependant on something increases your chances to survive should look at oil.
What?



What happens if that plant or animal dies out? Not a very smart move if u want to continue surviving.
Right. It's not very "smart". Does that mean God isn't very smart then?

See, the thing is, evolution isn't smart. It just does the best it can with what's available. Sometimes that leads to a dead end. If something kills your symbiote and your existence depends upon it, you're out of luck. Given enough time, something else will come along to fill the niche formerly occupied by you.


edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


See the thing is you equate creation with god..

False premise.

Think of it like a guy with legos and not a guy in a cloud



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


This thread has turned into the one big creationist tactic of "moving goal posts" and placing head in sand that is typical of "superstitionists" and their conspiracist ideation.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the OP and the "questions" were already addressed. Heck, I gave a pretty good response, in detail, starting on page 2.

Yet, that's not what the Randy, you, or any other creationist want to hear and it's ignored. Then seven pages later it's still . . . "why can't anybody answer the questions?", followed by the fallacious claim the "because they can't". No . . . they can. It just doesn't involve Aliens, Nephilim, or any other supernatural entity.
edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Randy....you where right. That is probably the best video I have ever seen. The information that it contains is astounding. I could not help but laugh at all the people with the snide remarks that didn't even watch the video. I thank you from the deepest part of my being for making a thread about that video. Star for sure, but for some reason I am unable to flag. I wanted to view the video before I responded that way I could actually debate with you the reasons that it may be wrong. Now I know that I can't debate it at all. It covered all bases and that wealth of information has actually made opened my views to what this thing we call reality truly is. So all I can really say is Great Thread.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
You want me to make sense?

"Evolution is Gods way man"




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Wertdagf
reply to post by randyvs
 


Give me your best effort at falsifying you own video so the people reading this thread know your not just some fool who's claiming "I don't understand, therefore god."

I hope you realize there are already all sorts of official responses to these claims so coming to a conspiracy forum to ask people who aren't experts to explain something to you isn't the best path to the truth.


Lol. So you want the experts to explain things to you? The experts in this world have taken this world to the point that we are at. Do you like this point of time? I don't. I would rather hear from everyday people who are critical of the world at this point in time. Like the ones on this website who actually try to see the big picture. Your argument suggests you do not think much of the people who post on this website. Well your free to think what you like, just like the OP.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Itismenotyou
reply to post by randyvs
 


Randy....you where right. That is probably the best video I have ever seen. The information that it contains is astounding. I could not help but laugh at all the people with the snide remarks that didn't even watch the video. I thank you from the deepest part of my being for making a thread about that video. Star for sure, but for some reason I am unable to flag. I wanted to view the video before I responded that way I could actually debate with you the reasons that it may be wrong. Now I know that I can't debate it at all. It covered all bases and that wealth of information has actually made opened my views to what this thing we call reality truly is. So all I can really say is Great Thread.


Unfortunately, the above is not true. Some have watched the vid and gone to the subsequent links and refuted the information presented, which is all bunk by the way.

However, as I have previously stated, if it goes against preconceived notions and superstitious beliefs it was ignored. The misrepresentations of the evidence, by Smith, Pye, and Childress, have already been pointed out.
edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

winofiend
Would not the correct title be, Anthropologists, explain this?

I don't go to an evolutionist when I get a sore throat. But somewhere along the way, it was a factor in my getting a sore throat...

When we can explain with certainty the entirety of human evolution and the history of the earth, beyond theory and conjecture, then I think if we can still rule out evolution as a reasonable course of action that lead to us being here today that we can then entertain 'god' or 'et'. If it must be so.

We will never achieve this. So it's just silly to throw out reasonable explanation in favour of delightul beliefs.


edit on 6-9-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)


That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Let me read their evidence first, then I will better be able to either understand it or refute it.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Itismenotyou

winofiend
Would not the correct title be, Anthropologists, explain this?

I don't go to an evolutionist when I get a sore throat. But somewhere along the way, it was a factor in my getting a sore throat...

When we can explain with certainty the entirety of human evolution and the history of the earth, beyond theory and conjecture, then I think if we can still rule out evolution as a reasonable course of action that lead to us being here today that we can then entertain 'god' or 'et'. If it must be so.

We will never achieve this. So it's just silly to throw out reasonable explanation in favour of delightul beliefs.


edit on 6-9-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)


That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.


Your posts show you do not know anything about what Evolutionary Theory states and clearly are ignorant of what actual evidence there is for evolution.

Evolutionary Theory doesn't state life is the result of an "accident" or the animals just "change kinds", and there is over 150yrs of evidence.

How can you say Evolutionary Theory is wrong, if you don't even understand what it states or the evidence for it?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Nacirema
reply to post by randyvs
 


This guy is clearly not qualified to speak about human osteology or bioarchaeology. He was talking about the deliberate modification of the cranium and the unusual placement of the sutures which bind the various plates together. The cranium of an infant is extremely malleable, so it can be modified. This will greatly affect the process of suture closure (he calls them "creases" in the video).

I fear for the credulous-minded people who choose to eat this kind of stuff up because it supposedly challenges mainstream archaeology. What a load of hooey!

edit: I can't make it past the 30 minute mark; this is too unbearable to watch...
edit on 9/6/2013 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)


He shows the difference between the skulls that are known to be modified by bindings and the skulls, that even I can see, have not been modified by bindings. You see, bindings will in most cases bring the top of the skull up to more of a point. I am not saying all the skulls he tries to use to prove his case were not made from bindings, but a lot of them are not.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Nacirema
reply to post by randyvs
 


This guy is clearly not qualified to speak about human osteology or bioarchaeology. He was talking about the deliberate modification of the cranium and the unusual placement of the sutures which bind the various plates together. The cranium of an infant is extremely malleable, so it can be modified. This will greatly affect the process of suture closure (he calls them "creases" in the video).

I fear for the credulous-minded people who choose to eat this kind of stuff up because it supposedly challenges mainstream archaeology. What a load of hooey!

edit: I can't make it past the 30 minute mark; this is too unbearable to watch...
edit on 9/6/2013 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)


He shows the difference between the skulls that are known to be modified by bindings and the skulls, that even I can see, have not been modified by bindings. You see, bindings will in most cases bring the top of the skull up to more of a point. I am not saying all the skulls he tries to use to prove his case were not made from bindings, but a lot of them are not.




top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join