Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by iterationzero

Why would I watch it? I've read it many times and still have a copy somewhere. It's fun read.

Well I have the video and cant see how it is that you missed the entire thing presenting oodles of proof that our planet was once visited and possibly inhabited by other beings.

You have a personal definition of "proof" that is quite unique.

Your kidding me, you don't take a single shred of ET evidence in that movie as proof. WOW. I wonder how might you think the prymids got here? Nazda lines?

I don't understand why you don't get this -- he admitted to committing fraud and fabricating evidence for his books.

Ok but he never said ALL of his books were fraud. Your just stretching it and being prejudice.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

 

And that would be because the "missng link" fossils are somewhere miles off shore where a coastline used to be. Think AAT.

Possible but doesn't matter. According to wikipedia, our mtDNA shows that our race never dipped below tens of thousands. So I always end up asking where are the bones?

It's pretty clear you don't know anything about geology, either.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And you probably never noticed that primates never get vaccinated for this and they live fine.

Except for the ones that die, of course. You seem to think animals live in a fantasy land. It's quite interesting to me, as an Anthropologist. Where did you get this idealist view of nature? Your parents?

reply to post by itsthetooth

How could it be possible that god made my species 10,000 years ago when we are finding all new and old bones to have what appears to be altered DNA? There is only one answer, he wasn't our original creator.

The 10,000 year stuff is obvious nonsense as we have homo sapiens remains that are FAAAAAAR older. And there's ZERO objective evidence suggesting any DNA altering

Well I do know a little about evolution and I have read some things. I would't say I know everything, but I know enough of the gaping holes to make me realize what your buying into is not accurate.

The theory of evolution completely debunks your nonsense. So please, enlighten us, what are those so called "gaping holes" you speak of?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I see then it just must be a coincedence that 99.9% of the species fit in or have a nitch here and we don't.

This is wrong. Where do you get this figure and this idea that animals just automatically fit their environments? They only seem like they do because all the ones that don't fit and adapt die. Humans have circumvented this with technology. Our niche is actually rainforests, where we spent the majority of our evolution. You can find aboriginals living quite healthily (those that survive selection) in the trees in South America.

For example the polar bear migrating because he is out of food is natural and not because of global warming that huamns have caused?

What? Didn't I mention that somewhere around 97% of all species ever are extinct?

I'm not sure where you were going with this but I can agree we certainly have some problems, most of which stems from us not being on our correct planet. These akward things surly would not exist, neither would depression, suicide, homosexuality, killing for fun, not to be confused with random acts of kindness. alcohol, drugs, cigerettes and many others. It's our way to try to cope with how this planet rejects us. We cant up and leave (yet) so we take it out on our self. Mother nature will continue to push us off forever untill we get back to our intended planet.

Remember that every planet would have a balance and we are not part of that balance here. Somewhere out there, is s home made just for us. It would be so obvious what everything there is in relation to our needs. Take a look here at earth and find a single thing that you can honestly say makes you feel tied to this planet.

Are you serious? Nature is not friendly... to any creature. Yes, we're not in balance with nature, but that's because a creature doesn't have to be. Creatures that go against nature usually die. We survived.

My example of the dodo bird obviously went over your head. Would you like examples of predators in the animal kingdom that caused mass extinctions because they rode on a log and made it to a new area? How is that balanced?

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by vasaga

 

So you knew what the OP asked? well dont get upset when you are corrected then.

Diversity?

Doesn't matter. Lack of explanation does not mean that the one who has an explanation is right. Isn't that one of the fundamental arguments that you guys use all the time? Not knowing how X happened is not proof that God did it. Well, the same applies in this case as well. No one providing an explanation is no evidence that evolution is true. And if anything, evolution and creation are not opposites and can easily co-exist.

And I do have my own view on things, but I'll never share it. Not when I already know what kind of responses I'm going to get. It's pretty obvious that people in this thread are not interested in alternative views, but simply interested in imposing their own.

Edit: And oyeah, spare me the "it's not my own view, but the truth" bull.

reply to post by steveknows

Please don't claim that I have agreed with you in any way because a person with an IQ of 10 would be able to work out that I haven't.

Nothing you say is based in even a theory. There's no science behind it. I can say that the gibbly gobs from thwack are what created the world but there's no science behind it which is what you're doing

I disagree, I think when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye all find individual findings that all point in the same direction, I think it's good.

Von Daniken was a tool. He lied in his books and people like yourself swallowed it up. One of his claims is that the easter island statues couldn't have been moved by man becuase there were no trees on the island to make rollers. In fact science had known for years before writing his book that the reason there was no trees is because the islanders cut them all down and he knew this. But he also knew that people like me weren't about to rush out and buy his books but rather people like you, the ones who can be sucked in. There's oh so many things he writes about that HE knew to be crap. And here you are using it and calling it science. You're lame. In fact every source you meniton is actually lame.

We I can't comment on what was behind that but I will say that it doesn't jus simply disprove the rest of his work. God forbid what would we do if he got a speeding ticket, we would say that he rushed into things.

I'm not discussing this with you anymore you bring nothing to the table

Well I have brought everything to the table including something you probably never heard before, that we aren't from here. Granted it's not an easy pill to swallow, sad to say there are to many things that are overwhelming that say its true, including the lack of any supporting proof of macroevolution. Well be off than I enjoyed chatting with you for what it's worth.

reply to post by colin42

I am not here to teach you anything. You have your beliefs, I have a scientific theory back up by evidence.

What I am getting pretty tired of is that you persist is saying evolution says (fill your own nonsense in here) and when you are corrected, (That does not mean you have to accept). When you are corrected you continue to repeat the same nonsense.

At least give us the courtesy of showing you have listened and quote evolution correctly as we do when quoteing from the information you give us.

Well I'm just going by the links that I learned from which sorry to say don't seem to offer any viable means for understanding. IMO its impossible to see evolution based on to many factors except one. We should have a plethora of other life that has sub species that are currently in the transformation stage. We don't, not a single one, Not a single one out of 5 million species. Now why is that, did you ever think about that?

reply to post by HappyBunny

Wrongo. Back in the beginning, the Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere. Once bacteria learned to photosynthesize and chemosynthesize, the O2 concentration increased. This was not a good thing because all of the organisms around then hadn't evolved to utilize oxygen. So,most of the organisms that couldn't adapt to the increase in O2 died. Back then, that was all of them, except the ones who made it into bogs and muck and slime, places where there is little to no oxygen.

The Earth is on something like its fourth or fifth atmosphere.

Migrate, adapt or die.

What proof do we have that tells us they adapted?

reply to post by HappyBunny

And...what doesn't work?

All life being made up of the same amino acids and proteins should be a very big clue that we evolved from the same place.

And I know I have said this about 17 times now but it could have just as easily be a creator using recycled ideas and recycled parts. If he did it to 5 million speces why not do it again. It's not proof we are related, but it could be proof we were made by the same creator.

No we do not belong on earth. I know you might feel differently but your wrong. Just because we breath air, and drink water does not mean this is our home. We can't even drink the water unless we process it. Get a clue, there is nothing here on earth that says you belong here, and I challange you on ANY example you could possibly send back about this.

Go without water for a couple of days and see what happens. Go on, I dare you. Want to see your teeth fall out, your gums shrivel up and your eyes shrink into your head? Wouldn't that be fun?

You're making stuff up as you go along.

I guess you missed the point again. Of course we would get sick without water, but did you never stop to think that just maybe there might be other planets with water? It's actually so common that we have 5 million species that depend on water, some of which live in it.

Originally posted by iterationzero
Because your claim of interventionism is based on several things. First, that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. While I agree with this claim, there is still no objective evidence for it. Second, that the intelligent life that exists elsewhere in the universe visited us. I don't agree with this claim for several reasons, and there is still no objective evidence for it. Remember the preamble to Occam -- "All other things being equal..." So since you can't offer up objective evidence for the existence of aliens or that they've visited us, the naturalistic explanation given by evolution is the correct one.

Are you acting this way because you want me to prove to you that I have a good enough reason to believe what I believe? If you already know this stuff, why do you keep saying there is no objective evidence? Let's take Gobekli Tepe for example, when you put that place in our "commonly understood as fact" time line there is no objective evidence that stone age people did that or could do that. If you just brush it off with a typical "Well ancient man was very crafty" comment you haven't proven anything. There are megalithic structures all around the world that share similar designs and degree of accuracy that we would be hard pressed to do today. Can you give me objective evidence how these things were done? And don't link me to some guy who uses power tools and makes a model nowhere near the scale of the original. The most plausible explanation is that those otherworldly folks are more than likely the candidates than stone age humans with rocks, logs and vines. Your version makes no sense is violates laws of physics.

Your naturalistic explanation is neither plausible nor correct. You can't build these structures with primitive tools to the degree of sophistication they have reached. If it's so simple why can't we do it today? Explain tool marks on ancient sculptures and the "tomb" in the great pyramid. Explain the erosion patterns from rain on the Sphynx suggesting a much older age. This stuff is objective and there is a lot of it. Nothing naturalistic or even logical about your version.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Well I think its hard to understand that without first understanding the universe itself, not that we have a clue. This is where I think a lot of unanswered questions will remain.



By saying we're alien to this planet, all you're doing is moving the responsibility for creation somewhere else. You're not addressing the fundamental question.

Well thats a valid statement. It appears that your right on the end result anyhow but the intention isn't to throw off the responsibility, its just that it isn't here to begin with which is also why you have people on a forum like us up in arms about it. There are missing pieces that simply aren't here.

reply to post by HappyBunny

It's pretty clear you don't know anything about geology, either.

It doesn't matter. The fact is that there are shared traits across the board with every living thing and some non living things on this planet. It could look like we are all related. But it could just as easily be the same creator playing with the same erector set.

reply to post by Varemia

Except for the ones that die, of course. You seem to think animals live in a fantasy land. It's quite interesting to me, as an Anthropologist. Where did you get this idealist view of nature? Your parents?

Remember that the primates have a lot in common with our DNA so these things could be explained. Now if you said this was affecting 97% of the earths inhabitants I would thing we as humans might have caused it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

And...what doesn't work?

All life being made up of the same amino acids and proteins should be a very big clue that we evolved from the same place.

And I know I have said this about 17 times now but it could have just as easily be a creator using recycled ideas and recycled parts. If he did it to 5 million speces why not do it again. It's not proof we are related, but it could be proof we were made by the same creator.

Once again, then, who created the creator? You never address that question, and it's an important one. If we're so complex that life here can't have arisen by chance, than any Creator must be a lot more complex than we are. The same logic then applies: if God is that complex, he can't have arisen by chance and must have been created. So, who created him?

No we do not belong on earth. I know you might feel differently but your wrong. Just because we breath air, and drink water does not mean this is our home. We can't even drink the water unless we process it. Get a clue, there is nothing here on earth that says you belong here, and I challange you on ANY example you could possibly send back about this.

Go without water for a couple of days and see what happens. Go on, I dare you. Want to see your teeth fall out, your gums shrivel up and your eyes shrink into your head? Wouldn't that be fun?

You're making stuff up as you go along.

I guess you missed the point again. Of course we would get sick without water, but did you never stop to think that just maybe there might be other planets with water? It's actually so common that we have 5 million species that depend on water, some of which live in it.

All that means it that it seems that water is a requirement for life. It doesn't mean we aren't native to this planet.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Well I think its hard to understand that without first understanding the universe itself, not that we have a clue. This is where I think a lot of unanswered questions will remain.



By saying we're alien to this planet, all you're doing is moving the responsibility for creation somewhere else. You're not addressing the fundamental question.

Well thats a valid statement. It appears that your right on the end result anyhow but the intention isn't to throw off the responsibility, its just that it isn't here to begin with which is also why you have people on a forum like us up in arms about it. There are missing pieces that simply aren't here.

The intention IS to throw off the responsibility because you can't answer the question. Saying that we were just dropped here along with countless million other species is just a copout...it doesn't address the fundamental question. All it is is an evasion.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

It's pretty clear you don't know anything about geology, either.

It doesn't matter. The fact is that there are shared traits across the board with every living thing and some non living things on this planet. It could look like we are all related. But it could just as easily be the same creator playing with the same erector set.

Actually it DOES matter. You obviously have no idea how tough it is for a bone to become a fossil--it can only happen under strict conditions.

See here:

www.collectingfossils.org...

www.fossilmuseum.net...

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

anthro.palomar.edu...

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero
Because your claim of interventionism is based on several things. First, that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. While I agree with this claim, there is still no objective evidence for it. Second, that the intelligent life that exists elsewhere in the universe visited us. I don't agree with this claim for several reasons, and there is still no objective evidence for it. Remember the preamble to Occam -- "All other things being equal..." So since you can't offer up objective evidence for the existence of aliens or that they've visited us, the naturalistic explanation given by evolution is the correct one.

Are you acting this way because you want me to prove to you that I have a good enough reason to believe what I believe? If you already know this stuff, why do you keep saying there is no objective evidence? Let's take Gobekli Tepe for example, when you put that place in our "commonly understood as fact" time line there is no objective evidence that stone age people did that or could do that. If you just brush it off with a typical "Well ancient man was very crafty" comment you haven't proven anything. There are megalithic structures all around the world that share similar designs and degree of accuracy that we would be hard pressed to do today. Can you give me objective evidence how these things were done? And don't link me to some guy who uses power tools and makes a model nowhere near the scale of the original. The most plausible explanation is that those otherworldly folks are more than likely the candidates than stone age humans with rocks, logs and vines. Your version makes no sense is violates laws of physics.

Your naturalistic explanation is neither plausible nor correct. You can't build these structures with primitive tools to the degree of sophistication they have reached. If it's so simple why can't we do it today? Explain tool marks on ancient sculptures and the "tomb" in the great pyramid. Explain the erosion patterns from rain on the Sphynx suggesting a much older age. This stuff is objective and there is a lot of it. Nothing naturalistic or even logical about your version.

I think that part of the reason you are so eager to attribute any achievements that happened before modern times to aliens is because for some reason, you can't accept that maybe our ancestors weren't ignorant cavemen. They were just as intelligent and creative as we are today and it's high time we gave them credit for that.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Wrongo. Back in the beginning, the Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere. Once bacteria learned to photosynthesize and chemosynthesize, the O2 concentration increased. This was not a good thing because all of the organisms around then hadn't evolved to utilize oxygen. So,most of the organisms that couldn't adapt to the increase in O2 died. Back then, that was all of them, except the ones who made it into bogs and muck and slime, places where there is little to no oxygen.

The Earth is on something like its fourth or fifth atmosphere.

Migrate, adapt or die.

What proof do we have that tells us they adapted?

They found a niche and adapted to their new environment. Many of them are still with us, among them C. botulinum, which causes botulism. (And is what BoTox is made of, incidentally.) It's anaerobic but has an enzyme that allows it to tolerate low levels of oxygen. It also developed the ability to create endospores. But the biggest adaptation is its toxins. It's not the bacteria that kills you--its the toxins. The different strains of C. botulinum produce a lot of different types of toxins that kill different types of mammals. The genetic evidence is that the genes for these toxins are truly ancient and probably have a viral source through horizontal gene transfer.

It adapted, in other words. It would have died out otherwise.

reply to post by MrXYZ

The 10,000 year stuff is obvious nonsense as we have homo sapiens remains that are FAAAAAAR older. And there's ZERO objective evidence suggesting any DNA altering

Well just because have homo sapiens older than that, does not mean that our species was here back then too. Its just more proof we aren't related.

Pye shows there is no mistake that our DNA has been altered. However he claims a different reason. You see he feels that the alterations and plethora of defects could be from our species actually being engeneered. Sad to say, he could be right. I think they were how god executed his punishments on us.

The theory of evolution completely debunks your nonsense. So please, enlighten us, what are those so called "gaping holes" you speak of?

Well it real simple...
Specieation appear to just be allowed variances within a species, like blue eyes, versus brown eyes, or green eyes. These species are said to have been witnessed actually changing, yet we never have any proof, much less a new species name of what they changed into. This is more likely because it never changed species to beign with.

Microevolution might be real within allowed variances in that same species, but it never changes into another species. The idea behind what causes this is also somewhat of a mystery. I'm hearing from some people that there is an intelligence behind it, while others are saying its totally random. If it were random, we have zillions of different species branching off from the original species, creating with it, a plethora of sub species many times over. Of course we have nothing like this. We have our 5 million species and nothing we could call intetween them.

If you narrow it down to us and primates ( which seems to be the biggest topic ) then I have to ask why no other species have been allowed to evolve too.

Macroevolution would still have left behind a trail of transgression. We have no proof of anything transforming ever. It's the biggest crock in the series of theorys not working together. This is why I always ask where are the bones. Even though we claim to have found 19 possible, they aren't even able to tie any of them to us either.

This evolution monster is tricky. It works without being seen, never exposes what its doing, never chooses the same direction and somehow destroys all the evidence. I have some ocean front property I would like to sell you in Colorado too.

Intervention has very good reasons why that is very little if any proof. First of all aliens don't live here, now they used to, and we have proof of that, but I'm talking about now. Aliens don't come down to visit us and leave calling cards. Anytime we are faced with something real, it quickly gets debunked because we have no way to prove it being alien. Which is the case wtih the star child skull.