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.

 

How Much Do We Really Know

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

Your still unknowingly proving my point sir, because with all of your knowledge and so called understanding you can't answer my 1 question. If the earth is 4 billion years old and humans are 2 million years old and there are 5 known mass extinction events in Earths history where's the link that shows how we survived if we had no intelligence above primal instincts.


You are making numerous assumption here as you are alluding the ELE's that trace back 100's of millions of years, some of which predate mammals even existing let alone primates and humans.

Which ELE's occurred in the last 10-12 million years since the line that would become humans diverged from the common ancestor we share with the other great apes? Let's start there because anything that occurred previously has no bearing at all on this discussion.

I'll give you a starting point just to be fair... research the Toba event ~70KA which reduced glaobal human populations to between a few thousand and as few as a hundred breeding pair of H. Sapiens Sapiens, began a sharp decline in Neanderthal populations and wiped out the last remnants of H. Erectus.




Think about it super volcanoes erupting, massive earth quakes, floods, enormous viscous creatures, to survive we would have had to be intelligent or have had help so you tell me smart guy since you want to debate


Please explain why we needed some other super powered non terrestrial intelligence to help surviving species on Earth to continue living after this event. This is YOUR premise so please explain why any life would have required outside intervention to continue surviving.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

Your still unknowingly proving my point sir, because with all of your knowledge and so called understanding you can't answer my 1 question. If the earth is 4 billion years old and humans are 2 million years old and there are 5 known mass extinction events in Earths history where's the link that shows how we survived if we had no intelligence above primal instincts. Think about it super volcanoes erupting, massive earth quakes, floods, enormous viscous creatures, to survive we would have had to be intelligent or have had help so you tell me smart guy since you want to debate


Its 4.54 billion years old. You're out by 54,000,000 years.
Just for your arguments sake, I will accept your 2 million year old age for humanity
The last mass extinction was 65 million years ago, we were still in the tree shrew stage of our evolution.
ooh now heres an idea, perhaps for most of our existence we've been somewhere geologically stable, like erm Africa, where we left 60,000 years ago
Your problem is that you don't know anything
my problem is that I know a lot,
We are never going to find common ground until you do a little research




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk


What he's saying is that there very well may be ancient civilizations that were wiped from existence by other civilizations that formed in the same location. You can't deny its possible because we still do it today when we destroy building and use the remains to build something new. If this is the case then any skeletal remains found would be associated as 1 civilization

This link is definitely for you
en.wikipedia.org...
pay attention, there may be questions later

edit on 29-6-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Ok let me clear things up just a bit, first there are gaps in the theory specifically what i said about the extinction events and where in the theory of evolution does it say how we survived. I never said we went extinct because of course we wouldn't be here but looking at the theory of evolution and looking at the extinction events the 2 don't add up. To survive we would have had to have an aerial or aquatic evolutionary link and seeing how we have no generic link to flight but our children can be born underwater without harm out raises a few questions in my scientific mind



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

I did not deny the possibility of waste getting preserved.

Yes you did, you said the idea was nonsense

originally posted by: Fer1527
So you are saying all of that human waste... would survive say, twenty thousand years? Now that seems like real nonsense. [/post]

Again like you did earlier, trying to move the goalposts because you're wrong.
Your claim for "all" is irrelevant, as no one was discussing "all" of anything at the time. I have posted numerous supporting links, you have posted unqualified opinion.
"All" of your unqualified opinion is worthless as you don't actually have any facts to hand
Try researching before you spout off in future, it will make you appear more intelligent
thanks





posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

rebellion7

Ok let me clear things up just a bit, first there are gaps in the theory specifically what i said about the extinction events and where in the theory of evolution does it say how we survived

The theory of evolution doesn't cover disaster management. It covers evolution. The clue is in the name




originally posted by: rebellion7 looking at the theory of evolution and looking at the extinction events the 2 don't add up.

They don't add up, of course they don't, the last extinction event killed off the dinosaurs and led to the age of mammals, so we are here because it happened
The biggest nonsense in your rant here of course, is that you think you have a scientific mind
thanks for the laugh
edit on 29-6-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

That was the first time i actually read up on the Harris matrix so thank you for that but all it really is saying is pretty much our ancestors weren't smart enough to know how to build on top of another structure but they were smart enough to build pyramids. I'm a state champion debater so it's not like i fully disagree with you I just like to find the truth between speculation and theory



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

That was the first time i actually read up on the Harris matrix so thank you for that but all it really is saying is pretty much our ancestors weren't smart enough to know how to build on top of another structure but they were smart enough to build pyramids. I'm a state champion debater so it's not like i fully disagree with you I just like to find the truth between speculation and theory


They were smart enough to build on top of another structure, in fact a lot of homes in ancient Sumer had a tomb in the basement. When the tomb was full, they used the next floor as a tomb and then built another floor on top. You're lucky I'm not a debater for an opposing state really, from my perspective you are coming over as completely clueless about everything you've had an opinion on.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

So you don't believe in the great flood which scientist say happened about 4300 years ago meaning we were here for a while before that. So what's your argument on that



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk




So you are saying all of that human waste... would survive say, twenty thousand years? Now that seems like real nonsense


Seems like you have a hard time reading mate.




Try researching before you spout off in future, it will make you appear more intelligent


That's really all you seem to be capable of doing, "appearing intelligent". You keep talking of research and supporting evidence but you really don't seem to understand my posts here. Maybe you should start by studying your own language?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

So you don't believe in the great flood which scientist say happened about 4300 years ago meaning we were here for a while before that. So what's your argument on that


Scientists do not say that there was a great flood at all
2300 bce Egypt, life went on as normal
2300 bce Akkad, life went on as normal
2300 bce Europe, life went on as normal
2300 bce Australia, life went on as normal

You are making biblical claims, and pretending real scientists agree with them
There is no evidence from geology that supports a great flood

Youre going to try and tell me it must be true because the bible says so right ?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I'm not debating you on this I'm debating the link you sent. I know of about 100 civilizations that built structures on top of other structures. Your link was saying that if this is found out is an anomalie. So you made point for me thanks




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk




So you are saying all of that human waste... would survive say, twenty thousand years? Now that seems like real nonsense


Seems like you have a hard time reading mate.




Try researching before you spout off in future, it will make you appear more intelligent


That's really all you seem to be capable of doing, "appearing intelligent". You keep talking of research and supporting evidence but you really don't seem to understand my posts here. Maybe you should start by studying your own language?


ahhh, so its down to posts with no substance but for personal attacks
reported



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

I'm not debating you on this I'm debating the link you sent. I know of about 100 civilizations that built structures on top of other structures. Your link was saying that if this is found out is an anomalie. So you made point for me thanks


The link actually stated the opposite
you aren't having any points made here



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk


www.theguardian.com...

There's your proof



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

From what your saying then your link agrees with me in which case yes it does prove a small case if debate so again thanks



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. Ignore this post



edit on 29-6-2015 by Inarismessenger because: mobile fail



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Come on guys this is a debate not an argument



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk


www.theguardian.com...

There's your proof

you should probably have read the last paragraph
"But he does not claim to have found the landscape of Noah. " We really cannot say in any way, shape or form that this is the biblical flood. All we can say is that there has been a major flood, that people were living here when it happened. We prefer to stick with the facts -and who knows where those facts will lead us."



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

From what your saying then your link agrees with me in which case yes it does prove a small case if debate so again thanks


The harris matrix is about stratigraphy, perhaps you can copy and paste which part you think supports you.



new topics




 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join