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.

 

New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

So somebody faked fossilized footprints long long ago...
OK gotcha..


(Facepalm)
No. They're not actually human tracks.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...
I still find thier debunking lacking any real evidence that they are that of another dinosaur, for the reason they use the equal depth argument...
Well why are they not shaped the same then???
They use the claw marks and off set big toe as an argument also...
Why does the evolution crowd not use this as evidence of the evolution of ape to man?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...
I still find thier debunking lacking any real evidence that they are that of another dinosaur, for the reason they use the equal depth argument...
Well why are they not shaped the same then???
They use the claw marks and off set big toe as an argument also...
Why does the evolution crowd not use this as evidence of the evolution of ape to man?


Because there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is any of the homo species. If there were then we would be reading about it in reviews, articles, newspapers etc.

Science doesn't just look at footprints and go "oh look. An ancient version of us." It's a lot more complicated than that.

And as for pissing off people who believe in evolution? Nah. Hasn't worked. Just showed how ignorant people who believe in fairy tales are.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh you mean books on evolution?
Or books about you?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh you mean books on evolution?
Or books about you?


I mean a certain book that was written 150 years after some event was supposed to take place.

Science is about observing what has actually happened. You know, with actual proof?

Religion is about believing something happened 2000 years ago where there is no solid proof for it.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ya guess we are both left waiting for actual proof...

And I guess all the ancient texts older then 2000 years are all fakes too huh?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ya guess we are both left waiting for actual proof...

And I guess all the ancient texts older then 2000 years are all fakes too huh?


I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

You've dragged this so off topic it is beyond a joke.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Kinda put your foot in your mouth there...

NP I'll go read a fairy tale on evolution...



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You don't understand science and you don't understand evolution. Well here's a thought: Why not click on this link and learn something. After you do that, pick out any part of the website - a comment, a research paper - anything - and tell me why it's wrong. Tell us why there's no proof that evolution is not a natural phenomenon on this planet.

ats-library.wix.com...

We'll wait - patiently - as we always do - until one of you numbskulls comes up with an answer.


Tic toc, tic toc.........................................................



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh you mean books on evolution?
Or books about you?


I mean a certain book that was written 150 years after some event was supposed to take place.

Science is about observing what has actually happened. You know, with actual proof?

Religion is about believing something happened 2000 years ago where there is no solid proof for it.


Science is about observing what happened

Think about how silly that comment is and why your argument is so easily dismissed

We can't observe what happened, it's all just assumption
Read the op, it's assumption, not science

You have stated as such yourself



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Hey Phantom

I will have a crack without reading your link

It's all imaginary, assumption, make believe

The evidence doesn't exist, it's all assumption just like the op,s address

How about you go to your link and find something with solid evidence, offer it up for me to tear apart

Tic toC tic toC ticity tocity tic

Bit childish isn't it



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: cooperton
I think carbon dating is going to be an integral part of discerning the truth of the matter. Dinosaurs which were carbon dated were shown to be between 4,000-40,000 years old according to C-14 data:

Carbon dating dinosaur fossils

Insistent data is obviously required, but this is a curious empirical observation. Finding DNA and other soft tissues in dinosaurs indicate these organisms are not millions of years old, and carbon-dating agrees with such a conclusion.


Ah yes, ye ol' Carbon Dating argument.

Radiocarbon dating isn't used to date Dinosaur fossils, and the reason for that is because Carbon has a half life of 5,730 ± 40 years. We don't use radiocarbon dating to date dinosaur fossils because there isn't any carbon to date.

That fact alone makes your link just ridiculous.

Radiocarbon dating cannot date anything over 50,000 years because of that.

We can, however use other methods, by using the isotopes such as uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.

Of course, we can also determine general age simply by the sediment that the fossil is found in as well, which cross-confirms those other methods used, among other things.

To determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

Furthermore, we have other techniques that can determine the age of sedimentary rock, which include analyzing amino acids and measuring changes in an object's magnetic field. Scientists have also made improvements to the standard radiometric measurements. For example, by using a laser, researchers can measure parent and daughter atoms in extremely small amounts of matter, making it possible to determine the age of very small samples.

I wasn't lying when I said "everything we observe in nature on and around Earth goes against a young earth/universe"

For more information, please visit this link


And that doesn't make the data of dating accurate because you don't have evidence for a constant

You can only assume a constant, not science without hard data

Oopps

Oh and ghost, save your lecture at me
I don't respect your science or opinion
edit on 7-2-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   


I will have a crack without reading your link


I think that's all we need to know about your interest in science and how it works.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29

Everything at the link is "evidence". As I said, pick out an article, comment - whatever - and tell me why it's wrong.

Carry on.....

edit on 7-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you have any idea what a "constant" is? Can you give an example? And what does it have to do with C14 dating???

Ok genius, it's your turn.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well you weren't there when the Bible was written, were you? But I would bet you get all your "science" from the Bible.
Explain that please.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I've no problem with evolution but the actual speciation or split I don't have a clear understanding on the monkey to man event. What is a "split"? I just want to hear how the first baby human was born, and what it might have looked like.Why have today's monkey's not evolved? I've never seen a monkey with an afro, and can't fathom what kind of monkey sex gave rise to H. sapien sapien? I have read the SPECIATION OF MAMMALS AND THE GENETICS OF SPECIES CONCEPT but I get that a man and a monkey are considered a breeding pair. (Humanzee) It's a little hard to swallow a polymorph happening were we come from archaic beastiality ancestry. The whole ancestry story is a rather shocking in some family trees because it reveals morally objectionable sex practices right down the line. Well the Humanzee is theoretical, and NOT proven??? Nobody ever tried to artifically breed human sperm with a chimp? I find that hard to believe. Mmm get some of that Hominini. Tarzan only wanted Jane, but settled for the monkey,

edit on 7-2-2016 by mapsurfer_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom if you don't know, research, I am not your teacher

Ghost is misrepresenting science, dating, nobody knows the earths environmental conditions with any certainty 1000 years ago never mind the conditions associated with dates you imagine

I don't care to argue, just point out the glaring faults in the assumption of ghost



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well you weren't there when the Bible was written, were you? But I would bet you get all your "science" from the Bible.
Explain that please.



I don't call the bible a scientific book, irrespective of more of your wild assumptions
Don't try and explain me to yourself, you will be wrong

Christianity is a faith, can you understand that simple and obvious statement



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...


No one is mad. The only thing you achieved is convincing people that you're that unintelligent as to believe such claims.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
I still find thier debunking lacking any real evidence that they are that of another dinosaur, for the reason they use the equal depth argument...
Well why are they not shaped the same then???
They use the claw marks and off set big toe as an argument also...
Why does the evolution crowd not use this as evidence of the evolution of ape to man?


This must be your 10th post after the original claim. You still have yet to cite a source for your information (of which you readily acknowledge is bull# yet are still arguing for some reason)


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ya guess we are both left waiting for actual proof...


False. We're waiting on your proof, heck, we're still waiting for you to do more than pronounce unfounded opinions (still no citations yet)

We actually have given you tons of evidence, you've just chosen to ignore it, reject it, or simply cannot understand it.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
And I guess all the ancient texts older then 2000 years are all fakes too huh?


About religions, yes. No one is picking on yours exclusively. All religions lack the same amount of proof.
edit on 7/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't care to argue because you don't know what to argue! You have no evidence that your position is correct. You merely spit out an opinion with no evidence, no references or citations and absolutely no logic.

All evidence that dating methodology is valid is contained in the papers posted at the ATS website that I gave you.
But you have no desire to investigate or consider that evidence.

That's the definition of willful ignorance - the complete failure to consider facts that are right in front of you.

Once again, I challenge you to select a single paper at the website and tell me why the premise, the methods or the conclusion is wrong. You can't do it. And you won't do it.




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join