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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 80
27
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

13. In any case, they observed, the extreme slant of the rear parietals and the occipital bone challenges whether this skull could have contained typical brain matter, and casts further doubt that its cerebellum was typical. In a normal skull, the cerebellum rests at the base of the cerebrum, supported by the internal occipital protuberance and the twin flares of the sagittal sulcus and the transverse sulcus. With this support mechanism, over the course of a lifetime the cerebrum’s weight does not press down onto the cerebellum and distend it such that it will cease to function properly. In this unique skull, however, the entire weight of the brain slants directly down on the area that should hold its cerebellum. Instead of the rounded area typically present for support, there is a wedge-shaped area of perhaps one-quarter of normal. Furthermore, the internal protuberance and sulcus ridges are significantly reduced. What effect would the weight of a notably amplified brain have on an unsupported cerebellum carried into adulthood? It presents a genuine conundrum.

14. Personally, I was most concerned with determining how the rear of the skull could have become so flattened, from the atypical fossa (depression) in the sagittal suture between the parietals, down to the foramen magnum opening. This could not have been caused by any kind of flattening or binding device because the surface of the occipital reveals the subtle convolutions inevitably present in unaltered skulls. Skulls that undergo any kind of shaping technique will always reveal such technique with a distortion of the bone surface. Lacking even a hint of evidence of shaping, and of any unnatural or premature fusing of any sutures, it is entirely safe to say that the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial. This too is significant.

15. Another of my concerns is that the external occipital protuberance (inion) is absent from its notable position in the center of the occipital bone, and indeed is represented by an actual slight fossa (depression) in the surface. (As mentioned earlier, the same is true for its internal counterpart, which has been greatly reduced.) It seems clear that the neck of this being attached to its skull much lower than in a normal skull, centered under the balance point for both lateral and medial flexion. Even more unusual, the neck itself seems to have a circumference somewhere in the range of 50% of usual neck volume, which presents yet another example of the thorough uniqueness of this specimen.

16. In addition to lacking frontal sinuses, there is no sign of the brow ridges evident in normal skulls. Its upper orbits are thin edged rather than rounded. Its zygomatic arches are greatly reduced and significantly lowered from their usual positions. Its mastoid processes are less than normal, as are all connective points for the lower face (which would attach to the coronoid process and condylar process of the missing mandible). Based on these observations, its lower face may have been as much as 50% reduced from normal. On the other hand, its inner ears are noticeably larger than normal, again pushing into the range of 50% larger. This is also true for the condyles abutting the spinal atlas.

17. A detached upper right maxilla contains two molars [recent note: one has been lost to testing]. Tooth wear on the molars indicates maturity was reached, yet another set of teeth are present in the maxilla and appear ready to take the place of those mature teeth when and if they are lost or are no longer useful. The question of age at death remains open.

18. Carbon 14 Dating has shown the Human Skull to be 900 years old ± 40 years[2]

------

1. Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerrupted teeth are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.

2. Carbon 14 dating was also carried out on Starchild Skull Bone in July/August 2004 which produced the same result - 900 years old ± 40 years

Notice how Steven Novell was not on that list.

There was never an x+y chromosome recovered, there was only a y chromosome, and that was later determined to be contamination. You really should read the site to get a better understanding of why your only going to get contamination from a 900 year old skull in a lab not equipped to do dating that old. But again, I can see where once again, if it's scares Evolutionists, they are going to change it, to fit their delusion, and ignore the real scientific facts.

1999, BOLD, British Columbia, Canada: The first DNA test conducted on the Starchild Skull was done at a lab that was not equipped to test 900 year old DNA, but as it was not possible to access an ancient DNA lab at the time, the Starchild Project hoped that we may get some useful result from a forensic DNA lab. After multiple contaminations, the BOLD lab recovered a tiny amount of nuclear DNA, 10% of the usual minimum amount of DNA required to give an accurate result. This DNA was from a human male Y chromosome. As no subsequent testing with more advanced equipment has been able to duplicate this result, and as the main difference between a forensic and ancient DNA testing lab is that forensic labs are not capable of removing as much contamination as an ancient DNA lab, the Starchild Project supports the belief of many experts that this result was not accurate, and was likely the result of contamination of the bone.

mitochondrial DNA from haplotype C

Yes you are correct, and apparently lost the significance of this skull to begin with. It would once again seem that you are merely skimming over the facts and trying to cherry pick things that aid in your delusion while totally missing whats going on here. Yes mitochondrial DNA from haplotype C was found, proving this to be a three parent life form. This alien was created by aliens coming to earth, abducting a healthy female human and using her to carry the child. The mtDNA is scraped out of the original alien DNA package and the human females mtDNA is put in it's place. This child with have DNA from three parents. Alien mother and father, and human mtDNA which only accounts for about 2% of total DNA. Perhaps it would have helped if you would have educated yourself with PYE's work before hand, perhaps it would have helped if you had first educated yourself with todays genetics a little more as well.

Pye calling the results were NOT a cop out as scientifically proven by the next results. Again your just not happy because it's not telling you what YOU want to hear.

No it's not a human/ alien hybrid, that would imply that it's half human and half alien, which is not the case here. It's nuclear alien mother and father and human mtDNA. I don't think your understanding this.

Perhaps you better brush up on your genetics a tad. Here is a video dumbed down for the incredulous.

www.youtube.com...

We would not need to adapt if Evolution were real. We would not need to Evolve if Adaptation is available.

Major flaw in theory there.




posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Couldn't the child just be a freak? You know the types that show up in freak shows. People born with freakish proportions and deformities aren't exactly a new phonemenom you know. Having one example of an unusual skull doesn't mean you can immediately jump to the conclusion of "Aliens", Giorgio.
edit on 17-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

Hey, all you have to do is have the Supernatural education I have, and read the bible. The rest falls in your lap.

I see, so because no one, in your opinion, as we honestly don't know for sure, has agreed with me, that means I'm wrong. So if everyone is going to drink Pepsi, you better not drink Coke right, because you would be wrong.

How can I take myself seriously. Easily, I look at the garbage that Evolutionists are trolling and realize my findings should be easy to accept and understand. Especially when every part of it is redundantly backed up.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: kayej1188

Hey, all you have to do is have the Supernatural education I have, and read the bible. The rest falls in your lap.


Well since there isn't any evidence for either of these things then you are just being told what to believe without being able to confirm it on your own.


I see, so because no one, in your opinion, as we honestly don't know for sure, has agreed with me, that means I'm wrong. So if everyone is going to drink Pepsi, you better not drink Coke right, because you would be wrong.


Picking between coke and pepsi is an opinion. Following evidence is a matter of fact and rationality. Though you are correct in pointing out that just because everyone believes something, doesn't make it true (that's a logical fallacy).


How can I take myself seriously. Easily, I look at the garbage that Evolutionists are trolling and realize my findings should be easy to accept and understand. Especially when every part of it is redundantly backed up.


This reads like you are already predisposed not to believe anything an "evolutionist" says (whatever that is) in favor of your confirmation bias; especially since you stoop to calling us "evolutionists" when that isn't a real label, just a derogatory insult from Christians who cannot reconcile their faith with reality.
edit on 17-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

By proper carbon dating, which the first test was unable to pull DNA from, and as the second test from a different lab proved the first one to be flawed.

1999, BOLD, British Columbia, Canada: The first DNA test conducted on the Starchild Skull was done at a lab that was not equipped to test 900 year old DNA, but as it was not possible to access an ancient DNA lab at the time, the Starchild Project hoped that we may get some useful result from a forensic DNA lab. After multiple contaminations, the BOLD lab recovered a tiny amount of nuclear DNA, 10% of the usual minimum amount of DNA required to give an accurate result. This DNA was from a human male Y chromosome. As no subsequent testing with more advanced equipment has been able to duplicate this result, and as the main difference between a forensic and ancient DNA testing lab is that forensic labs are not capable of removing as much contamination as an ancient DNA lab, the Starchild Project supports the belief of many experts that this result was not accurate, and was likely the result of contamination of the bone.

Read it for yourself chief. They didn't have the right tools to test that age of remains.

Well peer reviews don't mean anything. If you think majority rules, I have to tell you that can be a wrong approach. Look at how many people go to church every Sunday and don't realize they are praying to Gray aliens.

Well I have never claimed to get my hands dirty and do any of the work myself. I'm simply reading the reports from the credible people that have.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well there can be many reason why it's undisclosed. It could be that this lab was rented for a fraction of the cost, but as a result, he was not allowed to publicize the findings. It could be that the lab is funded by a Christian organization which would NEVER allow such testing.

It was first of all ruled OUT from being Hydrocephalus by the following people...

5. Specialists who examined the skull and associated X-rays and CAT scans were:

Dr. Fred Smith, Head of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, New Orleans, La.

Dr. David Hodges, Radiologist, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. John Bachynsky, Radiologist, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. Ken Poskitt, Pediatric Neuroradiologist, Vancouver Children’s Hospital

Dr. Ian Jackson, (formerly of Mayo Clinic), Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Michigan

Dr. John McNicoll, Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Seattle

Dr. Mike Kaburda, Oral Surgeon, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. Tony Townsend, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

Dr. Hugh Parsons, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

Dr David Sweet, Forensic Odontologist, Vancouver

So I guess they all must have been wrong huh?

Ya but I bet you don't deal in genetics with ancient bones do you?



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

Well the first thing I can see right off the bat, is that they eyes wont work here. The star child's eye sockets are so shallow that a humans eye balls would probably be sticking out about a good inch or so. I mean it would be more obvious than graves disease.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Im so glad to see that your supernatural training was able to tie into your MD. What a blessed day!



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well research has taught them that along with those types of anomalies, there are certain things they can look for that tell them that is the case. With the star child, it's a perfect skull. It's as though it was SUPPOSE to be that way.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well research has taught them that along with those types of anomalies, there are certain things they can look for that tell them that is the case. With the star child, it's a perfect skull. It's as though it was SUPPOSE to be that way.



Supposed to be that way? How is something NOT supposed to be the way it is? Everything grows and ends up how it does. The only time something isn't the way it was supposed to be is if it was modified by external forces.

People with physical deformities are supposed to be the way their bodies followed the blueprint that is their DNA code. Just because they are different than us doesn't mean they aren't SUPPOSED to look like that. They, just like everyone else, are just products of their DNA.
edit on 17-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: kayej1188

Hey, all you have to do is have the Supernatural education I have, and read the bible. The rest falls in your lap.

I see, so because no one, in your opinion, as we honestly don't know for sure, has agreed with me, that means I'm wrong. So if everyone is going to drink Pepsi, you better not drink Coke right, because you would be wrong.

How can I take myself seriously. Easily, I look at the garbage that Evolutionists are trolling and realize my findings should be easy to accept and understand. Especially when every part of it is redundantly backed up.



so you are an expert in the supernatural? how does one become certified in such a field of study? i know demonology is a thing...but so is scientology.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well research has taught them that along with those types of anomalies, there are certain things they can look for that tell them that is the case. With the star child, it's a perfect skull. It's as though it was SUPPOSE to be that way.



perfect in what context?



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I'm going by what credible DR.s and Scientists are noting. I'm not going by anything freely as you explain.

Then why would you use a line on me claiming no one on ATS agrees with me, therefore I must be wrong? Clearly you use illogical reasoning. Have a Coke I guess.

Well I don't have faith, not sure if you have been following along or not. Faith is bad, faith is what God used to try to control us, and control is bad. I don't have an opinion, until after the findings.


I would seriously doubt that what I have is confirmation bias. I mean people wanting things to be a certain way can probably be visioned to a point. But seriously, come on, when you have like 87 of them that are NOT ambiguous.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't used the term that "I'm blessed." I use the term "I understand."



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly, as in defects, resulting in freaks of nature.

It depends on how you look at it. If you think it's normal to be sickly and physically challenged, then you could be correct.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I'm going by what credible DR.s and Scientists are noting. I'm not going by anything freely as you explain.


Actually you are going by what doctors and scientists that agree with your point of view are saying (or say something that you can construe along your world view). All the others, you disregard as "evolutionists".


Then why would you use a line on me claiming no one on ATS agrees with me, therefore I must be wrong? Clearly you use illogical reasoning. Have a Coke I guess.


I didn't...?


Well I don't have faith, not sure if you have been following along or not. Faith is bad, faith is what God used to try to control us, and control is bad. I don't have an opinion, until after the findings.


Faith is all you have since you've discounted all the evidence for evolution.


I would seriously doubt that what I have is confirmation bias. I mean people wanting things to be a certain way can probably be visioned to a point. But seriously, come on, when you have like 87 of them that are NOT ambiguous.


So you are blind to your own confirmation bias, got it.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

There are no certifiable titles, as again, this subject is not bound to the terms of the scientific. You just have to teach yourself. I started when I was 14, and I'm 48 now. But my study was really ramped up at the onset of the internet.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly, as in defects, resulting in freaks of nature.


They are only freaks in our, humans', eyes. By all other accounts they are still natural results of evolution and life.


It depends on how you look at it. If you think it's normal to be sickly and physically challenged, then you could be correct.


When did the conversation become about normalcy? I thought we were talking about what is and isn't natural along with how things are "supposed" to be.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: TzarChasm

There are no certifiable titles, as again, this subject is not bound to the terms of the scientific. You just have to teach yourself. I started when I was 14, and I'm 48 now. But my study was really ramped up at the onset of the internet.



Ohhhh internet evidence and internet research. That is SOOO credible.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not at all, none of them held or tested the skull.

No Evidence requires faith, as it's never been witnessed, or proven.

Nope, I don't have any. No on wakes up one day and decides to prove God was a space alien. Sorry you're wrong.




top topics



 
27
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join