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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I Thought you were eluding to dinosaur bones
My bad I made an assumption like evolutionists and was wrong...
edit on 9-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

There are plenty of fossils which can be called transitional. The chance of finding ANY fossil is low, as the conditions to have something fossilize is rather stringent. If it was not, every single stone we had would have a fossil of some sort.


Prove it rather than say it. This is not politics where shouting the loudest wins.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

Awesome

Your words are like butterflys

Can you prove that all fossils are evidence, transitional, not unique

Can you prove that



Yes, I can.

So can you.

That's why science is science. Anyone can do it (although sometimes it takes a lot of cash and specialised equipment).



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I would genuinely love to see that

Seriously a link would even do

I hope its a link to talk origins, that is always a Fun House, far worse than creationists sites

I wont even bother opening it up



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

I would genuinely love to see that

Seriously a link would even do

I hope its a link to talk origins, that is always a Fun House, far worse than creationists sites

I wont even bother opening it up



Here's a whole list for you with sources and everything.

LINK



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

How come there are millions of fossils missing?
edit on 9-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: add



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

How come there is millions missing?


We don't know how many haven't been discovered.

And the reason? Can be many reasons.
The main one is we simply haven't discovered them yet.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oooh, a wikipedia link! Those are always educational.

Refute or relent, raggedy ann.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oooh, a wikipedia link! Those are always educational.

Refute or relent, raggedy ann.


Yeah, I thought something that covered as much as possible, have sources and be easily readable would be good.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Just a list of animals with NO evidence at all they are transitional

You cant dig up a bone and say its transitional, you have to prove it

Go on and prove it

Please use science, not wikipedia



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

Just a list of animals with NO evidence at all they are transitional

You cant dig up a bone and say its transitional, you have to prove it

Go on and prove it

Please use science, not wikipedia



Well that just proved you didn't read it.

It's all there on that page. It's got all the corresponding links and sources.

If you think any of it is wrong is like to know what is wrong and why. I'd also like proof to show how it's wrong. You saying it's not is not proof.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Mortal blow

I have been called Raggedy Ann, will I ever recover, hang my head and skulk off from your amazing repertoire of clever wit and personal attack

Mods Mods


Now, lets see the evidence TC



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Start here: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lets not forget as I've already said, Fossils are rare occurrences.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well that link does link to actual scientific papers one could go investigate



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Read the links, and by this, if you have some actual will to have things answered, read the sources cited.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Odd how familiar fossils are found more commonly than new ones...
edit on 9-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

What makes you think this is the case? Cite away neighbour, cite away



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?


If Homo sapiens lived under ground we would have evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.

What happened was a mass extinction, not a complete extinction. Some animals and bacteria still survived.


If there was evolution we would have lots of transitional fossils, uhhmm, no?

You play with out thinking through the game


Every fossil is a transitional fossil but not every bone or imprint becomes fossilized; however, this concept is beyond your comprehension.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Yep this has been repeatedly stated, in various ways. But this current crop of creationists seem to selectively read replies



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join