Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If they were natural, we would all have them

It's illogical to assume that having no defects is not normal. Why do you think they call it defects.

Why don't you go hand out near a radioactive plant for a few years and see how many defects you acquire, and see how normal you feel afterwords.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I just posted two pages from pyes site about how they ruled out deformities. You will have to go back and read it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The ones I was able to see were obviously real and effective, yes.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Irrelevant to my point.

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

You are going to have to work on your grammar with this one, I'm having trouble understanding what this sentence even means. Though I think you are saying that not having evidence requires faith, which is obvious. Which is the definition of god, religion, and the supernatural.

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.

Well this is ignorant. Everyone has confirmation biases of some sort. It is part of being human. So you clearly are wrong there. But in any case, belief in the supernatural IS a confirmation bias since there isn't any credible evidence to say that it is true. Sure there are tons of witness testimonies, but they could be lying or not remembering things correctly. In other words, subjective evidence. And you can't prove something true with subjective evidence. You can only rely on faith (yep, faith) that all your accounts are telling the truth. This relies on confirmation bias to shoo away all dissenting opinions (like maybe the people aren't telling the truth).

The fact you cannot see this speaks worlds about your character and your position on things. When you said that you do most of your research on the internet, everything fell into place. I wonder how good you are at picking credible sources or not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps you are incredulous to other life beyond the stars. You would be shocked to see what trouble aliens visitors cause us on this planet. Here is a good place to start.

www.greatdreams.com...

a reply to: josehelps

Effective at convincing you of what you wanted to hear. In other words, confirmation bias.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps you are incredulous to other life beyond the stars. You would be shocked to see what trouble aliens visitors cause us on this planet. Here is a good place to start.

www.greatdreams.com...

Alien existence is off topic by the way. This is a topic about evolution. For the record, UFO's exist (at least the very basic definition of a UFO, unidentified flying objects). Aliens, probably, exist. As for being visited by extraterrestrials? That is probably not true. Though I can't disprove a negative like that, so it could still be true as well (they could just be well hidden and some of those witness accounts could be true). However all that relies on a bunch of assumptions and I'd rather side with Occam's Razor.

originally posted by: josehelps
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.

and you know this how exactly? because some ding dong who has no real background in science told you so in a blog, on a website or in a youtube video? and the second test did no such thing. it confirmed the human origin of the remains.

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.

Absolute BS Svante Paabo was doing ancient DNA testing in the mid 80's.Oetzi the "Ice Man" was tested in 94. Nobody sends samples out to an unvetted lab without knowing its capabilities. and if that were the truth, Pye is a bigger moron than I ever thought before, if its not true then hes a bigger Charlatan than I ever thought possible because he was making baseless pleas for cash donations from day 1

The facilities were very definitely available. In fact, the claims of contamination at the Bureau of Legal Dentistry are unsubstantiated by anyone outside of the Starchild Project and I can understand why. They couldn't keep sucking donors for money based on the results. Your assertion that only nDNA from the Y chromosome was recovered is entirely fallacious. Irregardless, the 2003 testing recovered excellent MtDNA and proved definitively that this specimen was indeed human, had Haplogroup C genetics and was of local origin with human parents. It SUPPORTS the 1999 testing.

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

I have read it and most likely more extensively than you have based on your replies.

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.

and if you think peer review is about "Majority Rules" youre more nuts than I thought. The entire point of it is for others in your field or related fields, to look for errors to make you look dumb to be quite blunt.

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.

I was simply remarking at the level of hypocrisy you were exhibiting with your commentary because somehow, your personal interpretation of the data is absolutely correct without seeing the remains or handling them yet you think its acceptable to take someone else to task for something you yourself have not and are not able to accomplish. Its ludicrous.

If you don't have the education and background, what puts you in a position of superior interpretation of the data than those who actualy have spent years or decades in related fields? All you're doing is parroting someone elses interpretation because its what you want to believe. you're in no way taking a critical look at the facts.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If they were natural, we would all have them

Not according to evolution. Those people just happened to mutate harmful or unhelpful mutations. Most likely they won't pass those genes on and the mutations will die out.

It's illogical to assume that having no defects is not normal. Why do you think they call it defects.

Because the term "defect" is a holdover from when we didn't understand evolutionary genetics as well as we do now. It certainly isn't a scientific term.

Why don't you go hand out near a radioactive plant for a few years and see how many defects you acquire, and see how normal you feel afterwords.

This is dumb advice and contrary to the point I was trying to make.

a reply to: josehelps

from the website of a paranormal researcher. Not an anthropologist, a geneticist or medical professional. Why? because none of those people are agreeing with your or Pye's assertions of Alien origin. What alien genetics to you have at your disposal for comparison? I asked that before but you seemed to have glossed over it.

Another good question is where are all the other hybrid bones?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Clearly, you failed to get the point of my post. Not only that, but you also managed to arrogantly refer to the personal faith of others as "superstitions".

You, and those like you, are part of the problem.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Prezbo369

Clearly, you failed to get the point of my post. Not only that, but you also managed to arrogantly refer to the personal faith of others as "superstitions".

You, and those like you, are part of the problem.

Religion IS superstition. That is unless you can produce some credible evidence to say the things they claim happened or do happen.

Give me testable and falsifiable evidence that god does miracles and I won't call belief in miracles a superstition.

a reply to: josehelps

Yet all the genetic markers for that condition are in the poor childs DNA, I see zero Geneticists there. Its also a partial skull so your plastic surgeon was guessing

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
You post a link for me that you stated "proved" the mutation rates in humans. Like it or not the paper IS based on assumption and they used that assumption to base the mutation rate on.
You asked me to show you the assumption in the paper and that is what i did. Now you are saying i have not "addressed your points". I never said that mutations did not happen in humans, nor did i say they could not be measured. I also never said that those mutations could not add up. I told you that it very well could happen. My point was that it is more of a faith based idea as the evidence is lacking. You are being dishonest at this point.

If you have other proof that is not based on assumption share it and we can discuss. However I hope you no longer act like a someone is attacking your religion because in all honesty that is the way you came across.

It is difficult to follow a conversation that has such long breaks in between responses, and I honestly do not feel like delving back through all the responses. You said something to the effect of "Why can't the mutation rate be 0." or "Who's to say they DO add up?". I don't remember the exact terminology you used, but it insinuated the mutations could stop or that adding up was a guess.

I posted the paper to show you that mutations can be measured, which suggests that they DO happen and the rate can CAN be calculated. Now obviously, this paper is not just referencing 1 individual. It is trying to estimate the figure species wide, because there is some variance. That doesn't take away from the fact that they mapped the genomes and compared each one to tell which genes mutated and how many mutations there were per generation. That part of the paper is certainly not an assumption.

Obviously the calculation is an estimate, because they haven't mapped every single chimp and human alive today. But the point was to show you that mutations do happen each generation, therefor they DO add up. 1 generation's worth of mutations + 1 generations worth of mutations = 2 generations worth of mutations. I don't understand how you think that is faith based.

T= the amount of years since humans and chimps split off into separate lines. You deny "macro" evolution, so I see why you think it's an assumption. In reality it's not, they just don't know the exact year it happened yet. This picture will become more complete as more fossils are found. Remember, the species wide calculation is an estimate, but the mutations happening each generation is not.

Google Scholar: Genetic mutations

Just to show you that there are hundreds of papers on genetic mutations and no reason whatsoever to assume they do not add up.

The point you have not addressed is:

Why do the mutations not add up?

It is irrelevant that you think they might. If you deny "macro" evolution you deny this very thing. You claimed that it is based on faith that they add up, but this is not true in the least. Sorry but the evidence is certainly not lacking based on those hundred or so papers that study genetic mutations.

You need to answer the question instead repeatedly dodging it or calling it "faith based." That would be dishonest if anything because I have shown direct evidence and you have not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course it's irrelevant to your point, you believe in faith and guessing, not hard core science.


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

Subjective evidence by the MASSES? LOL. That's what you Evolutionists are always leaning on, it must be a conspiracy if it proves Evolution wrong LOL.

I would trust that documentation being witnessed by the masses.

Besides there is nothing that gives anyone reason to believe all the people lied in the bible, or that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. You're just fishing, a common tactic among Evolutionists that can't accept the truth.

How good am I at picking credible sources. Well lets see. YOU name me one credible source that you would believe witnessed a UFO. Everyone from police, to firemen, to the president of the USA have been witnessed such things. But WHO do YOU consider an authoritative figure of the subject? When you reply with no answer to this, I will accept it as though you have none, and therefore are saying we have no reliable person to respect for this subject, and therefore will never accept it.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh wait rereading they don't have genetic markers. SOrry my mistake. BUT neuroligists say he had it. Also a human X and human Y chromosome = human. Case closed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Prezbo369

Clearly, you failed to get the point of my post. Not only that, but you also managed to arrogantly refer to the personal faith of others as "superstitions".

You, and those like you, are part of the problem.

Religion IS superstition. That is unless you can produce some credible evidence to say the things they claim happened or do happen.

Give me testable and falsifiable evidence that god does miracles and I won't call belief in miracles a superstition.

And once again, we're back to my 'beating your head against a brick wall' analogy.

I've said my piece. If you choose to continue being dismissive of those of us who hold to a faith, that is your choice, and your loss.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Prezbo369

Clearly, you failed to get the point of my post. Not only that, but you also managed to arrogantly refer to the personal faith of others as "superstitions".

You, and those like you, are part of the problem.

Religion IS superstition. That is unless you can produce some credible evidence to say the things they claim happened or do happen.

Give me testable and falsifiable evidence that god does miracles and I won't call belief in miracles a superstition.

And once again, we're back to my 'beating your head against a brick wall' analogy.

I've said my piece. If you choose to continue being dismissive of those of us who hold to a faith, that is your choice, and your loss.

I'm not dismissive of you. I'm dismissive of your beliefs since they are founded without any evidence. What am I losing by not believing them though? I used to believe them and I don't feel any different then as I do now.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well sure, anything that proves Evolution wrong, is off topic.

Taking the side that you are pretty sure extraterrestrials don't exist, tells me you know it all. You know so much that there is nothing left to learn. Probably why and how you also know that Evolution is the way humans cam to be. You live in your own world.

We already have a historical document that tells us they exist. We have a historical document that proves there was intervention and brought us to Earth. We have a historical document that proves Supernatural abilities are real.

But I assume sine you already know everything, there was no more room for this.