Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42


3...2...1 until tooth completely ignores your post before repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

en.wikipedia.org...

To answer your question.

I don't think people were meant to be bushmen.

I think if we were, we would have stayed that way, its another sign of, you guess it, humans not being from here.

Here you go again. You don’t think people were meant to be bushman. If you want to say that people were not meant to be bushman then prove it. Offer an argument in favour of your theory. Go against every historian/biologist/archaeologist and argue that man was not originally a hunter gatherer. Good luck.

You think we should have stayed that way, go live the life. Let me know how it goes.

We did not remain that way because we used our tech to improve our lives. Only a fool would read anything else into it you complete tooth.

Edit
BTW from your link you have proved many people have stayed that way. Its another sign of, you guessed it your wrong

reply to post by HappyBunny


I stated in a previous article about propylene glycol in foods. We eat it in many things. I can't drink the milk to neutralize it so have problems where it is absorbed. It is used in many things from shampoo to meds to increase the uptake of things into the body. My problem stemmed from it's use in medications that I was taking for Epilepsy as part of it's delivery system coupled with it's presence in foods and my inability to drink milk from an actual allergy that I developed and passed on to my children. There are others that are lactose intolerant and avoid milk, our countries present disregard of the low level toxicity of this particular chemical isn't good. It's presence in our food systems may be a reason that they once recommended three glasses a milk a day. There were problems caused by overconsumption of milk in the early 1900s, a calcium overdose thing. (Not the condition related to milk poisoning that was caused by cows eating a weed though)

reply to post by MrXYZ
I doubt he will be back for a few hours. I think the sister does her ward rounds at this time and he pretends to be asleep.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I stated in a previous article about propylene glycol in foods. We eat it in many things. I can't drink the milk to neutralize it so have problems where it is absorbed. It is used in many things from shampoo to meds to increase the uptake of things into the body. My problem stemmed from it's use in medications that I was taking for Epilepsy as part of it's delivery system coupled with it's presence in foods and my inability to drink milk from an actual allergy that I developed and passed on to my children. There are others that are lactose intolerant and avoid milk, our countries present disregard of the low level toxicity of this particular chemical isn't good. It's presence in our food systems may be a reason that they once recommended three glasses a milk a day. There were problems caused by overconsumption of milk in the early 1900s, a calcium overdose thing. (Not the condition related to milk poisoning that was caused by cows eating a weed though)

I've never heard that, but I can look in the literature and see what it says if you like.

reply to post by colin42

Here you go again. You don’t think people were meant to be bushman. If you want to say that people were not meant to be bushman then prove it.

Well like I said, its already proven, we no longer do that.

Offer an argument in favour of your theory. Go against every historian/biologist/archaeologist and argue that man was not originally a hunter gatherer. Good luck.

I never said we weren't at one time, what I'm trying to say is I don't believe it was how we were suppose to be.

Edit
BTW from your link you have proved many people have stayed that way. Its another sign of, you guessed it your wrong

Which link are you talking about?

reply to post by colin42

Eating a healthier diet means you live longer. Did you read the recommendations? Of course you did not. The lifestyle of the bushman fits in with it quite well.

Unless hes eating the bones for calcium, hes not.

No where does it say you must drink milk.

No where, which is the basis for my argument.

Did you read the list of sources of calcium? Of course you didn’t. It shows plenty of readily available foods that contain it and in comparable amounts.

True but unless you live in 4 different areas at the same time, you wont have access to them all.

Your really are crap at this aren’t you. You fail to make valid points. Totally unable to form a valid argument in support of your nonsense and fail miserably when providing links.

No I think its because your saturation of my replies is 0.

Evolution may be correct for most of the monkeys on this planet but I'm of RH- bloodtype, ie, not of rhesus monkey so I'm afraid you can't make a monkey out of me.

There is also a lot of historical alimonies that are not quite so mainstream but are worth reviewing, I would suggest starting your search with the likes of Michael Cremo and many other alternative archaeologists, the truth is out there, really far out there

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well like I said, its already proven, we no longer do that.

Last I checked there's still bushmen around

I never said we weren't at one time, what I'm trying to say is I don't believe it was how we were suppose to be.

Yet you fail at presenting any evidence proving that claim...

Unless hes eating the bones for calcium, hes not.

Still ignoring the fact that many vegetables can take care of your calcium needs??

True but unless you live in 4 different areas at the same time, you wont have access to them all.

You don't need access to them all, one source does the trick...even if it's at varying rates of efficiency.

reply to post by DorkLard


Sorry to burst your bubble there, but being RH negative only concerns the D antigen and has nothing to do with you having a common ancestor with today's apes and monkeys. Of course pseudo-scientific Youtube videos won't tell you that

Here's some real scientific information about it: LINK

Cliff notes: Sorry, you're not special in a biological sense

Oh, and Michael Cremo isn't a scientist, he's a Hindu creationist...and his claims aren't backed up by objective evidence. It's all pseudo-science at its best.

Originally posted by DorkLard
Evolution may be correct for most of the monkeys on this planet but I'm of RH- bloodtype, ie, not of rhesus monkey so I'm afraid you can't make a monkey out of me.

There is also a lot of historical alimonies that are not quite so mainstream but are worth reviewing, I would suggest starting your search with the likes of Michael Cremo and many other alternative archaeologists, the truth is out there, really far out there

He's the Forbidden Archaeology guy, right? I think he did too much '___' back in the '60's.

reply to post by MrXYZ



LOL, how drone like i found your response.

Maybe I should not of believed my physics teacher at school because he was a catholic and I'm not.

And as for your limited knowledge on the subject of Rh-, that was even more applaudable,in fact I am clapping now with the use of only one hand.

Originally posted by DorkLard
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

LOL, how drone like i found your response.

Maybe I should not of believed my physics teacher at school because he was a catholic and I'm not.

And as for your limited knowledge on the subject of Rh-, that was even more applaudable,in fact I am clapping now with the use of only one hand.

Most likely you got your Rh- from the Neanderthals. Just sayin'. And Mr. X is correct about the D antigen.

reply to post by DorkLard


Glad you agree RH negative has nothing to do with not having a common ancestor with today's monkeys

And of course you shouldn't listen to a physics teacher when talking about RH factors...as this would be "biology" and not "physics"

You also don't ask a cosmologist to treat a tumour...

I just flagged this thread purely for longevity's sake.

Originally posted by randyvs
I just flagged this thread purely for longevity's sake.

It's basically 1 guy repeating the same thing over and over and over again, completely ignoring all facts and objective evidence that disagree with his beliefs...not sure that's flag worthy

Some of us simply keep this going because we don't want tooth to have the last word and dumb down people on this board in the process...

You're of course welcome to add your views though

reply to post by HappyBunny


I find your comments signature ironic

Originally posted by DorkLard
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I find your comments signature ironic

Nothing ironic about it. Having an open mind doesn't mean you buy into fairy tales and pseudo-science

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by DorkLard

 

Glad you agree RH negative has nothing to do with not having a common ancestor with today's monkeys

And of course you shouldn't listen to a physics teacher when talking about RH factors...as this would be "biology" and not "physics"

You also don't ask a cosmologist to treat a tumour...

edit on 13-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

I never stated that i spoke to a physics teacher about biology merely I was making a simile that you can not dismiss people's theories based on their religious beliefs.

I on the other hand believe that any advanced civilisation would be treated as gods by a lesser advanced culture but I am not as so bigoted to dis-believe anything any one else says due to their belief in a supernatural and in my eyes a non existent god, if i did i would be a very lonely man.

reply to post by DorkLard


You essentially made a claim about the RH factor that has no bearing in reality. In fact, as the link I posted clearly shows, it has NOTHING to do with what you claim.

And you then posted a link to a video of a known pseudo-scientist who's demonstrably wrong.

The hilarious part is, you're actually being all smug about your ignorance and lack of knowledge