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.

 

Two videos for those who want to know the truth about evolution.

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: DeadSeraph

There is a distinct lack of fossil evidence to prove that men evolved from monkeys.

A common ancestor with apes isn't it?


Which ancestor would that be? Where is the fossil evidence demonstrating the transition from that ancestor to homosapiens? I've looked it over, and it really isn't all that compelling.

"Lucy" has to be one of the most ridiculous examples I've seen.

How do you get from this:



to this?



To say some "artistic license" was taken, would be an understatement.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Ivan Sanderson thought the Iceman was real... his report said it smelled of decay and had all the appearances of a hominid ... and that a dummy replacement was introduced when talk of manslaughter charges were bandied about... so the Minnesota Iceman is a convoluted tale that isn't a cut and dry fake, if one believed Sanderson, anyway.

As far as this... never mind the Neanderthal with a bullet wound ...where's the woman fossilized in limestone??



An excuse, that's all. The guy who owned it was close to being found out so he came up with the story that they had a 'dummy' made.

We have no proof at all that it was ever anything more than that, nothing other than Sanderson's opinion - and we can't test or interrogate that. Everything points to it always being a fake.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph



"Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different processes." No, they aren't. They never have been.


Yes, they are. One of them is the process of species evolving into different species, and one of them is species developing different characteristics through the process of adaptation.



That's like saying that inhaling and exhaling are two separate processes and not both just a continuing function of the breathing process. In Anthropology, we don't differentiate. It's all evolution just like inhaling and exhaling are just part of respiration.



"Where's the missing link?" There is no "missing link." The changes were gradual but the belief in a young earth contradicts this one.



I can't speak for the OP, but I believe in the creation of the universe, but do not believe in a young earth. Again, you are making broad assumptions. We understand that the theory of evolution involves gradual changes over millions and millions of years.


I'm not trying to stereotype or pigeonhole anybody but acknowledging evolution as a legitimate process alone puts you in a minority as a creationist. Evolution doesn't necessarily have to take place over vast time spans though. While it does, generally follow that route, there are many instances in the fossil record of Punctuated Equilibrium. A lot of this seems to coincide with other large scale events like genetic bottlenecks but the phenomena is legitimate.


There is a distinct lack of fossil evidence to prove that men evolved from monkeys.


I'm glad to hear that personally. I have my entire education- tied up in the fact that we ARE Apes and share common ancestry with all the other Great Apes, which share a common ancestor with old world monkeys prior to that lineage splitting during the Oligocene(~25MA)



The fossil record is much stronger for creatures which were said to have lived much further back. Why is that?


There are gaps everywhere in the fossil record. Some periods are far better represented than others but it's not true to my knowledge that the farther back in the geologic clock one travels that the fossil record becomes more dense or complete.


How do you explain the discrepancy between the fossil record and the theory of evolution when it comes to the Cambrian Explosion?


What is the discrepancy to which you refer? The Cambrian Explosion took place over a period of about 40MA +/- if you're referencing time scale involved. Or am I misunderstanding you?





edit on 25-2-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Mostly because "Lucy" wasn't the only set of remains utilized when the recreations were begun. There are other specimens of A. Afarensis(The Australopithecine Lucy is). Yes, they are not all as complete as "Lucy" but out of the sets of remains located, we've been able to reconstruct a piecemeal representation of the various Australopithecines. And even at that, nobody is claiming that any reconstruction is 100% truthful or completely lifelike. It's the best representation that has been put together based on what is currently known. As more remains are located and catalogued, we add to our pool of knowledge and make alterations as necessary.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: IndependentOpinion




Most users that believe in evolution will slam you because it videos made by religious people.


Hes a geneticist and has a degree in biotech I believe. Very good scientist, and regardless of his beliefs the information he presents is not easily refutable. In fact anyone I have ever seen engage a debate on the subject of macro evolution with this gentleman looks foolish.


In what peer-reviewed journals of biology or paleontology (the appropriate fields) has he been published? I'm guessing none but you could always surprise me.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: aorAki
Technically, it is the occipital bone, but that seems to me like an avoidance of acknowledging that the hole is the foramen magnum.


Agrred, I should have phrased that better by saying the rod is emerging through an already existing hole in the occipital bone.


It's a really shoddy photo on the website anyways. If the site alone doesn't give one pause when taking into consideration the prestige and expertise of New Jersey's favorite Orthodontist then I guess we all need to buckle up for the ride. The guy is supposed to be taken seriously as a dissenter of legitimate science but all he can get up and running is an outdated Angelfire account? But that's enough bashing the guy on the aesthetics of his presentation. I'm more interested in why everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that Cuozzo is more famous for his "hypothesis" and I use the term very loosely here... his hypothesis that H. Neanderthalensis is not a separate species of hominid but instead a human being who lived in "pre-delluvian" times when biblical characters lived for hundreds of years and that morphological features they present such as more pronounced brow ridges and occipital bun are the result of bone continuing to grow throughout these prolonged lifespans.

I believe that the following photo is a bit clearer than Cuozzo's angelfire presentation-


It's quite clear that this is no exit wound and is in fact the foramen magnum through which the rod is resting.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: strongfp




Guppies, moths, and dogs. There you go, instances which evolution has been confirmed and observed, by sexual, selective, and natural forces. What more evidence do you need?


All examples of variation among species....


A common German Shepard cannot breed with a wolf anymore. As many others can't either, dogs are domesticated and "new " species of wolves.

And there are some guppies that wont bread with other populations because they aren't attracted or notice them anymore. Look up guppies in Trinidad.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look to the let on that page you will see:


Employment History

Founder and President
Christian Science Association of Quebec
Hewlett-Packard Company

Board Memberships and Affiliations

Voting Member
Creation Research Society

Education

master's degree , science ( biotechnology ) and years
Bachelor's degree
Master of Science degree , micropropagation
M.Sc.



I don't know is it just me, or did anyone else notice this?





Text Founder and President 
Christian Science Association of Quebec 


Or this?




Voting Member 
Creation Research Society 


I wonder how he voted at the creationist Research Society? (sarc)
:

He was obviously biased so I don't trust him.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

WOW. Not at all where I expected the "exit wound" to be based on the OP's contrivances. How could anyone even begin to think that is the exit wound of a gunshot? Ridiculous. I mean the idea was ridiculous to begin with, but wow.

I'm going to respond to you in one post. Hopefully that is easier for you (it is for me).




That's like saying that inhaling and exhaling are two separate processes and not both just a continuing function of the breathing process. In Anthropology, we don't differentiate. It's all evolution just like inhaling and exhaling are just part of respiration.


This isn't an adequate explanation of the evolutionary process. You don't cease being able to inhale, once you exhale, like certain species cease to be able to breed with one another once they branch off within the evolutionary tree.



I'm not trying to stereotype or pigeonhole anybody but acknowledging evolution as a legitimate process alone puts you in a minority as a creationist.


First of all, I dislike being labeled as a "creationist". Mostly because of the rest of your statement, which attempts to paint anyone who believes in a God as a young earther. Precisely why many of us dislike being called "creationists". Yes, I believe in creation (at the fundamental level of the universe), however that doesn't preclude evolution of either the cosmological or biological sort. Atheists like to use "creationist" as a one size fits all term, for precisely this reason. They like to imply that anyone who disagrees with their theories are blithering young earth idiots, incapable of understanding science or unwilling to learn it. Nothing could be further from the truth.



I'm glad to hear that personally. I have my entire education- tied up in the fact that we ARE Apes and share common ancestry with all the other Great Apes, which share a common ancestor with old world monkeys prior to that lineage splitting during the Oligocene


We are classified as primates by definition, but there is very little fossil evidence linking this transition. Even you have to admit (as you did when I posted pictures of "Lucy"'s remains and her subsequent depiction) that there is a very great degree of inference.



There are gaps everywhere in the fossil record. Some periods are far better represented than others but it's not true to my knowledge that the farther back in the geologic clock one travels that the fossil record becomes more dense or complete.


How is it then that we have greater evidence for the transition from dinosaurs to birds than we do from monkey's to men?



What is the discrepancy to which you refer? The Cambrian Explosion took place over a period of about 40MA +/- if you're referencing time scale involved. Or am I misunderstanding you?


The Cambrian Explosion is thought to have occurred over 20 million years (40 being a very liberal estimate). Prior to the Cambrian we have a lack of fossils which depict later organisms. During the Cambrian record, we see the blueprints for subsequent species explode in number, and after it we see the results. The discrepancy lies in the fossil record itself. How can so many new species suddenly arrive in the fossil record, almost on their own, with very little time (relatively) to have evolved so many variations?
edit on 25-2-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: strongfp




Guppies, moths, and dogs. There you go, instances which evolution has been confirmed and observed, by sexual, selective, and natural forces. What more evidence do you need?


All examples of variation among species....


A common German Shepard cannot breed with a wolf anymore. As many others can't either, dogs are domesticated and "new " species of wolves.


wrong.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The question of the personality of Adam, regarded as the first man, and sole progenitor of the human race, is not the only one in regard to which the religious convictions of the world have necessarily undergone modification. The hypothesis of the rotation of the earth round the sun appeared, at one time, to be in such utter opposition to the letter of the Bible, that every species of persecution was directed against it, and against those who advocated it. Yet the earth continued to move on in its orbit in defiance of anathemas; and no one, at the present day, could contest the fact of its movement without doing violence to his own powers of reasoning.

The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages. This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature.

Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.

The Spirits Book- Allan Kardec
edit on 25-2-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Atheists like to use "creationist" as a one size fits all term, for precisely this reason. They like to imply that anyone who disagrees with their theories are blithering young earth idiots, incapable of understanding science or unwilling to learn it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Are you not painting all atheists here with the same brush? Guilty yourself of your accusation? Not all atheists think of creationism in that one strict sense, nor do all atheists think all creationists are YEC'ers and incapable of understanding science. I also take qualm with your 'nothing could be further from the truth' as it's quite evident some theists are incapable of understanding or unwilling to learn the science their beliefs are said to be in conflict with.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Men have erred in their interpretation of the fossil record as well.

Where once there was a "Brontosaurus" now there is none. This process continues to this day, not only within the realm of the study of dinosaurs, but within the study of human evolution as well. Homofloriensis is but one example of a debate that is ongoing as we speak.
edit on 25-2-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Atheists like to use "creationist" as a one size fits all term, for precisely this reason. They like to imply that anyone who disagrees with their theories are blithering young earth idiots, incapable of understanding science or unwilling to learn it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Are you not painting all atheists here with the same brush? Guilty yourself of your accusation? Not all atheists think of creationism in that one strict sense, nor do all atheists think all creationists are YEC'ers and incapable of understanding science. I also take qualm with your 'nothing could be further from the truth' as it's quite evident some theists are incapable of understanding or unwilling to learn the science their beliefs are said to be in conflict with.


Fair enough. I have seen the term used far too often in a derogatory sense, but I think perhaps I deserve your criticism here. I would at the very least like to see a mutual respect offered between the two sides of the debate. I think I have achieved that with you in particular, but it would be nice to see it proliferated further.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue. Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing.

Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: strongfp




Guppies, moths, and dogs. There you go, instances which evolution has been confirmed and observed, by sexual, selective, and natural forces. What more evidence do you need?


All examples of variation among species....



How?

With such a brazen word you cant even explain how I am wrong?

All I need to do is just google evolution of dogs and I am the one who is RIGHT.

A common German Shepard cannot breed with a wolf anymore. As many others can't either, dogs are domesticated and "new " species of wolves.


wrong.

edit on 25-2-2015 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: peter vlar

WOW. Not at all where I expected the "exit wound" to be based on the OP's contrivances. How could anyone even begin to think that is the exit wound of a gunshot? Ridiculous. I mean the idea was ridiculous to begin with, but wow.

I'm going to respond to you in one post. Hopefully that is easier for you (it is for me).



I'm glad that you also think it's very obviously NOT an exit wound and by all means.... no point in making 3 posts/replies like I did if you can get it all across in 1.






This isn't an adequate explanation of the evolutionary process. You don't cease being able to inhale, once you exhale, like certain species cease to be able to breed with one another once they branch off within the evolutionary tree.



It wasn't really meant to be an explanation. Just an oversimplified metaphor. Evolution is about change in allele frequencies. It's less concerned with the time frames within which these changes occur than it is with the fact that these changes are occurring. I think it's more of a statement on human nature that we need to categorize and place everything into neat and tidy microcosms for further classification than anything to do with the actual biological and genetic processes at work. I stand by what I said, in Anthropology there is no differentiation, especially in the way it is portrayed by those who do not believe evolution is a legitimate process. For those people it's a line in the sand. "I can believe that these things happen up to this specific point but beyond that I don't believe it is occurring." Just because someone can't understand it, fathom how it work,s whatever... doesn't mean that evolution ceases to occur simply because it doesn't fit into a tidy explanation for them or because it contradicts a process of belief they were essentially indoctrinated into and usually from a very young age. Sometimes not...one of my kids believes in god and jesus because they are talked about on Family Guy for example.


First of all, I dislike being labeled as a "creationist". Mostly because of the rest of your statement, which attempts to paint anyone who believes in a God as a young earther. Precisely why many of us dislike being called "creationists". Yes, I believe in creation (at the fundamental level of the universe), however that doesn't preclude evolution of either the cosmological or biological sort. Atheists like to use "creationist" as a one size fits all term, for precisely this reason. They like to imply that anyone who disagrees with their theories are blithering young earth idiots, incapable of understanding science or unwilling to learn it. Nothing could be further from the truth.


I do apologize for branding you with a label you find derogatory. It truly wasn't my intention. I mistakenly thought I had seen you identify yourself as such previously. And I completely agree that there is a huge cognitive leap between thinking the Earth is only several thousand years old and simply believing in a higher power that is responsible for everything that exists today by getting the ball rolling eons ago. Likewise, religious minded people tend to toss out "atheist" at anyone who supports and defends evolutionary science when most of us are much more in the grey area of agnosticism. A lot of us may not necessarily believe in an omnipotent deity a' la God/Yahweh/Allah etc... but many are open to new data or information that would confirm the existence of such.


We are classified as primates by definition, but there is very little fossil evidence linking this transition. Even you have to admit (as you did when I posted pictures of "Lucy"'s remains and her subsequent depiction) that there is a very great degree of inference.



Sure, we're classified as primates. We are also classified as one of the Great Apes along with Gorillas, Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Orangutan.

No...I'm not going to admit a "great degree of inference". As I pointed out when addressing "Lucy", while the reconstructions/representations of Lucy are not fully based on her partial remains, there are other remains of Australopithecus Afarensis in varying degrees of completeness in existence. if you take each set of remains and overlay them or superimpose them on top of each other and adjust for gender, you will get a remarkably accurate picture of what A Afarensis looked like. Certainly there are going to be some liberties because soft tissue isn't something we have access to so how much hair, skin color, eye color...those will be subjective. We can however make educated guesses based on the fact that A. Afarensis was more closely related to Chimpanzees and Bonobos than we currently are and we can make inferences based on living apes who reside in similar climates as existed when our hominoid predecessors were still living so it's a lot less random guesswork than it is educated guesses and legitimate inferences overlaid on fact based morphology. We know how tall "Lucy" was, that she was bipedal, the type of local climate they thrived in. We can tell how old she was based on teeth, how tall she was based on long bones. The forensics are quite solid. But enough on just one facet of the bush that comprises our prehistory. There is actually quite a robust fossil record of the last 5 MA and its growing every day and we are seeing farther and farther back into prehistory to the time of Sahelanthropus Tchadensis 7 MA which is right at the doorstep of the divergence of humans and Chimpanzees lineages. Certainly, I would be much happier with a more complete fossil record. Unfortunately for all of us, the prime real estate for early homininae evolution is the East African Rift Valley which has been a hot bed of volcanic activity for millions of years. Hell...we've got some of the earliest representations of upright bipedalism imbedded in volcanic ash from the time of the Australopithecines showing that their feet and gait were very similar to modern humans today yet definitively dated as a result of having walked through volcanic ash.


How is it then that we have greater evidence for the transition from dinosaurs to birds than we do from monkey's to men?


Again... there is no transition from monkeys to men. Biologically, we are apes. Apes and Old World Monkeys share common ancestry going back to the Oligocene and the most recent finds place this in the vicinity of ~25MA. There are geological issues associated with the proximity of the East African Rift to where Hominids emerged over the last few million years which make the fossil record less complete than I would like but still complete enough to be a pretty clear fact and not just idle speculation. And the fossil record is just 1 tool we have to trace our past. The genetic record in our genomes and those of our closest relatives tells its own story and one that more than corroborates what we have discerned from the fossil record.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

You seem to be pigeonholing everyone who doesn't hold a materialist view of the universe into one category. A category which many of us don't self subscribe to.


No, I think it's pretty obvious who I was talking about.



Yes, they are. One of them is the process of species evolving into different species, and one of them is species developing different characteristics through the process of adaptation.


Sigh... you're applying the creationist definition which is 100% wrong. They are not different processes, micro and macro describe the method of observation i.e. changes within a particular group vs speciation. Creationists or whatever title you prefer have invented this "microevolution vs macroevolution" separation to fit their world view when it's completely based on fallacy.



There is a distinct lack of fossil evidence to prove that men evolved from monkeys. The fossil record is much stronger for creatures which were said to have lived much further back. Why is that? How do you explain the discrepancy between the fossil record and the theory of evolution when it comes to the Cambrian Explosion?


I don't know what "distinct lack" you're referring to. I think you've invented that just like the micro vs macro distinction.

Here's a link that answers your questions about the Cambrian Explosion. Click Me





You are oversimplifying your opposition. Much smarter men than you have questioned the science. That's how science works.


Questioning the science is one thing. Giving lectures and making YouTube videos that attempt to discredit established principles is another. If these "much smarter men" have legitimate research, they should present it for peer review. Biologists would go crazy over new information that seriously challenges the Theory of Evolution. The folks making websites and videos like the ones in the OP don't have anything worthwhile which is why they rely on gullible idiots to line their pockets as they "preach to the choir."



This is interesting to me, coming from someone who probably didn't even bother reading the thread, or even watching the videos. Sure, there are some crackpot creationists out there. But the issue isn't as open and shut as you'd like to portray it, either.


I read enough from the OP to question the validity of the videos and several other posters confirmed my assumption. I'm not going to waste time on a snake oil salesman.



Not everyone who believes in a created universe assumes evolution is false.


Yet, you try to break down "microevolution vs macroevolution" and you use many of the typical evolution-denier talking points so you don't truly understand or accept evolution.




Many people who are more educated on the subject than you or I have raised valid questions and criticisms. Why does that bother you so much? It's almost like you are religious about it...


Again, "raised valid questions and criticisms" means jack and squat. When a real peer-reviewed study is presented that actually causes the scientific world to say "oh man, this new data totally contradicts the Theory of Evolution", then I'll listen. Agenda-pushing morons on YouTube are irrelevant.

It bothers me when ignoramuses try to persuade weak-minded people. The world has enough stupid people.
edit on 2/25/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/25/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Yeah, his credentials are pretty laughable.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Most users that believe in evolution will slam you because the videos were made by religious people.


No. Just no. They will slam him because the videos are full of lies and nonsense. It doesn't matter who presents it. I treat all science deniers equally regardless of faith. It is ignorance, especially when you read the word "macro evolutionist".

2 big red flags going in. Comments for the video are disabled and it hides the amount of dislikes. This is typical for video that contain lies to promote an agenda. Known frauds like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and plenty of other creationists do the same thing. Funny how real educational science videos do not disable comments and get tons of likes and positive feedback. These guys already know there will be huge backlash and even in a country that is 70%+ Christian, the vast majority will be dislikes. That speaks volumes.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No missing links but we don't have one example of Man-Ape or Ape-man?? Sounds like your missing some to me..


You do realize that Man IS an Ape right? You do realize that common ancestry doesn't mean there has to be an exact 50/50 human chimp hybrid right? You may want to brush up on that science.

20 separate missing links have already been found. 20 separate hominid species.


Your premise:

Nothing can bring about something.
Non-intelligence can produce irreducible complexity.
Non-life can produce non-life.


Proof positive you don't even know what evolution means. But you are 100% sure it's false and have researched BOTH sides, right?


edit on 26-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join