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: 25
13
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

By stating



ETA Thal AND Tal suffixes in German both mean valley or dale.


After stating




You keep going on and on about language yet you constantly use it wrong. Homo Neanderthalensis was NOT found at Neanderthal.




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Both of those quotes are correct.

Neandertal is not called Neanderthal. It hasn't been since 1901. Just because 2 suffixes mean the same doesn't mean you can use it to change the name of something.
edit on 2232016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

The problem here is these people seem to think that science never updates its information. Indeed we've had one person call it back peddling, as opposed to umm honesty....



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You don't have a say in that neighbour. You clearly don't understand what a Scientist is or does. I'm not a priest (well actually I am in my spiritual path, but that is separate)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

In an open forum, where you choose to engage people at will, you can not tell them to stop engaging you, especially because the are beating you.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I just find it absurd that the same people who use modern technology argue that science keeps changing its story. Well duh!

Any new evidence found is stringently looked at. If it changes the common view of that particular sybject then it changes.

If there was anything to doubt in evolution then the theory would be looked at and changed. Like it has been countless times because of new evidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I find it laughable that they attack science, then tell me what it is and is not, and who can practice it, and how. I suspect Trump supporters



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

It is funny that his argument is because he's a young earth creationist. Something that has no evidence for. Then argues that the science for evolution is wrong!

(I'm British so can't support any party
)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Beating isn't done in convincing others of one's opinions, and unsustained allegations of lying is why I choose to ignore Barcs. I had hoped your self confidence was based on you having solid arguments, which may still be the case.

This said, I don't know why you choose not to share them.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




Then argues that the science for evolution is wrong!


Argues that the case you make for the origin of species being other species is not science, so far.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79




Then argues that the science for evolution is wrong!


Argues that the case you make for the origin of species being other species is not science, so far.


You want to tell that to every evolutionary biologist? I'm sure there'd be interested to hear that what they have been doing for years isn't science.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

A lot of biologists' work is science, and some of the concepts temporarily accepted by a part of biologists are found lacking the methodology that would make them scientific.

So just as phrenology, the concept of the origin of species being other species isn't science, yes.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

What does phrenology have to do with evolution exactly? I'm not quite understanding what your point is.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Another thing I'd like to ask you. Are you really saying that every single Homo genus is just as we are now? How would you explain all the different Homo genera?



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Gladly:

First phrenology: it is a comparison, both the origin of species theory that species are other species and the phrenology theory that skull shape defines behaviour, species, or age, are based on the same flawed premise.

Second, the differences between different remains dug up by enthusiasts:

People differ slightly in shapes, sizes, and customs today as well.
A city hospital's MRI records will show this beyond any doubt.

The fact that people who happen to be shaped differently are interfertile now makes the definition of species include oddly shaped people in our own species.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You're trying to tell me that the different shapes and sizes of people today is the same as the difference between Homo Sapiens and Homo Habilis?

GTFO!



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm telling you people come in all sorts of slightly different shapes, always have, and if their ancestry include fish, this is not proof of it by any means.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Of course people come in different shapes and sizes. No one is arguing that.

My point is that Homo Sapiens and Homo Habilis are not the same as some fat guy and some skinny girl today. I know there's diversity, but I sure as hell haven't seen anyone who resembles Homo Habilis living today, have you?



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

The remains termed "homo habilis" were heavily reconstructed.

Some people today look exactly like Neanderthals, and the fact that they can breed with anyone makes them the same species.

Some people, especially incestuous bloodlines, have really weird looking skulls, I can promise you this.

I'd link to pictures but it's the internet, so who knows what is photoshopped.
Your local hospital if it accommodates enough patients is a good source of confirmation on this.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Yes, the face was reconstructed. The skull wasn't though.

Have you seen anything today that even comes close to resembling the Homo Habilis skull?




top topics



 
13
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join