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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
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



First off, "we" wouldn't be here in all likelihood if it were not for Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 65MA. The mass extinction of the dinosaurs and other large reptiles opened up a host of ecological niches that needed to be filled. And mammals were just the ones for the job.

Why exactly do you believe that some sort of avian or aquatic aspect in our past as a mandate for our current existence if I'm following you properly? None of that is necessary under Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Mammals were relegated to a limited variety of niches that quickly opened up to them and which they were able to take over in a short period of time geologically speaking. It in no way is a hole in evitionary Theory.

As for babies, prior to being born, they spend their entire existence in utero completely submerged and surrounded by water(amniotic fluid). They breath through the water, are mobile in that water, hear their mothers voice through that water and depend on that water. Of course they can be born submerged, it is up until the point where they draw their first breath,their natural environment. Why would they have any difficulty in the only environment they had know so far their entire development?




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

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






Bzzzzttttt!!!!.Wrong!You never accounted for the space faring reptilians who are descendants of the dinosaurs who covered up their civilization by tilting the tectonic plates!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: Marduk

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






Bzzzzttttt!!!!.Wrong!You never accounted for the space faring reptilians who are descendants of the dinosaurs who covered up their civilization by tilting the tectonic plates!

I thought that was only on Star Trek




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Maybe Dr.Who?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

My point being if life basically came from water, the primordial soup or whatever you wanna call it then why is it so hard to believe that at a point in our existence we had to revert back to the water for a period in time



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Maybe Dr.Who?

The Silurians were contempories of the dinosaurs, not descendants



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I believe that their is an aquatic humanoid species that the scientific world doesn't want to recognize because it would essentially man that they are saying mermaids are real which in turn would start to make people believe anything. I'm no scientist I'm just someone searching for the truth in its entirety. With all my research I've come to realize that most of our questions about the world have a direct answer except when we discuss the existence and history of human beings which is widely inconsistently when you break it down and look at the details

edit on 03/29/2015 by rebellion7 because: misspelling



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk


www.theguardian.com...

There's your proof


It's not proof of your claim though. It presents one side of a claim that is reinforced through a sensationalized headline. While Ballard certainly found submerged coastlines, he did not find evidence of a one time massive deluge or inundation. The inundation of the Mediteranean into what is now the Black Sea may have happened quickly in a geologic time frame or it may have happened pelt over centuries. The article certainly isn't proof that there is a consensus amongst earth scientists worldwide of a Noachian level flood event. If you were truly a master debater as you claim you would have engaged in some proper due diligence and at least fortified your own position and more likely would have taken the time to actually look into dissenting views to see what types of rebuttals you would receive. You certainly wouldnt throw out an article from the Guardian and call that definitive proof.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk



You mean that I got "The History of All Civilizations of Earth" wrong?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
How much do we really know?
We know history is continually rewritten as we become more advanced through technology.

Many people suggest history is intentionally surpressed, that there was indeed an advanced civilization who preceded our current civilization. That Ooparts are evidence of this.

If there was a prior intelligent species with advanced technology, could we truly know if we
have been reading it wrong?
Could what we be looking for to our mysterious past be right in front of our very eyes, yet we have
not understood the message it is sending? Could it be that simple?

Do we really understand Gobekli Tepe, Stonehenge, Giza & the Sphinx, the Nazca Lines or Sacsayhauman, etc.???

Have we been staring at the megaliths caught up in our own history missing the message being sent over time from a prior global advanced civilization - not an Alien civilization - but a Earth born species?

There are many unanswered enigmas regarding monuments of antiquity and it could very well be that we haven't reached the stage of technological advanced understanding and explicit comprehension as of yet.

And there is the myth of the hidden Hall of Records. If there is a fabled Hall of Records..it would be just that - a recorded history, and if it was found -

How much do we really know would definately change


Great thread OP
Question everything!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Peter vlar

My point being if life basically came from water, the primordial soup or whatever you wanna call it then why is it so hard to believe that at a point in our existence we had to revert back to the water for a period in time


If that was the point you were trying to make then why not just say that? So what evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? There's a huge differenc between eukaryotes in an aqueous solution and large creatures like mammals suddenly "reverting" as tou put it, to aquatic based life. And honestly, there are excellent examples of land creatures becoming aquatic. Look at any cetaceans for which there is an excel the fossil record showing every step of their journey from permanent land inhabitants to permanent denizens of the seas and every stage in between. If you're trying to infer that humans must have at some point become aquatic, you're about 25 years late for the thoroughly debunked "aquatic ape" hypothesis. Unless you have some sort of new evidence or data supporting this grand supposition. If so then I'm all ears. But always keep in mind that the more intricate the hypothesis, the more compelling
Your data needs to be in order to support it.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

I believe that their is an aquatic humanoid species that the scientific world doesn't want to recognize because it would essentially man that they are saying mermaids are real which in turn would start to make people believe anything. I'm no scientist I'm just someone searching for the truth in its entirety. With all my research I've come to realize that most of our questions about the world have a direct answer except when we discuss the existence and history of human beings which is widely inconsistently when you break it down and look at the details


Nothing about us is aquatic, the aquatic ape theory died a death already. It didn't even pass peer review, which in scientific terms means it isn't real.
The understanding of the evolution of human beings hasn't been inconsistent for over half a century. I suggest you read anything on anthropology by anyone with the surname "Leakey" and you'll soon realise where you are going wrong.
Its ok to have ideas, but when they have no scientific support, their value is dramatically decreased.


I'm guessing you saw that mermaid mocumentary and didn't realise that it was fictional



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf
a reply to: Marduk



You mean that I got "The History of All Civilizations of Earth" wrong?


Yeah, now you have to get an undistinguished career in metallurgy



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet . That Ooparts are evidence of this.


The only thing that Ooparts ever proved is that the people who think they prove something are usually self deluded



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

True but it was never said that the flood took cities to the bottom of the ocean. Water levels rose beyond imagination then receded over time. I've been trying to talk to scientists and others i know to get them to at least think about testing mountain rocks at high levels to support my claim but they just laugh it away



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Peter vlar

True but it was never said that the flood took cities to the bottom of the ocean. Water levels rose beyond imagination then receded over time. I've been trying to talk to scientists and others i know to get them to at least think about testing mountain rocks at high levels to support my claim but they just laugh it away

Because its ludicrous.
Mathematics easily proves that there isn't enough water on Earth to create a great flood that swallows mountains and there never has been
and surely, you don't believe that every ethnicity of man comes from a Jewish sailor in less than 5000 years
When you take the Bible as a starting point you just ally your knowledge with the bronze age. Because that's what its a product of

I guess you've never heard of Atrahasis
or Ziusudra
or Gilgamesh

Google is your friend

Still, I need to know, as Koala bears are indigenous to Australia and can only survive on eucalyptus leaves which only grow in Australia, how did they get home after the flood when the Ark ended up on Mount Sinai. Its about 12,205 km




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



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I know what your referring to and yes I've seen it, it was entertaining but not educational at least not for me seeing how i stopped believing the television and especially that internet after i saw Bigfoot giving a thumbs up. Even tho i love science my only problem is that in science if it can't be explained then its written off as a hoax or fiction. The only truth to that documentary tho is the video of the scientist research being seized. So whatever they found out they weren't supposed to find out. One i saw that tho i knew the rest was CGI and things like that.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Marduk

Marduk?

it that you?

Who else


HI haven't seen you in a long time, its me Ishtar

ATS is much more interesting when Marduk deigns to post, isn't it?

Harte



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

Even tho i love science my only problem is that in science if it can't be explained then its written off as a hoax or fiction.

Um no, that's not how science works at all, that's religion
were you home schooled by religious fanatics




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Don't put words in my mouth, i never said it swallowed mountains i never even said it came close no one did. What I'm saying is that you'll never know until you take a look and see. That's how things get discovered.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join